R v Kronlid and Others (1996)


Criminal Law Act 1967, Perverse verdict, Jury acquittal


R v Kronlid and Others (1996) concerns a perverse verdict and a jury acquittal.




Crime Criminal Law Act 1967 – Perverse verdict – Jury acquittal


In the case of R v Kronlid and Others (1996), the defendants were 3 women. They broke into a British Aerospace factory and caused damage costing over £1.5 million to a Hawk fighter place. The defence relied on section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967, which provides that it is lawful to commit a crime in order to prevent another (usually more serious) crime from being committed. They pleaded not guilty on the basis that they were preventing the plane from being sent to Indonesia where it would have been used in attacks against the people of East Timor.


The jury decided the case in an open court so there could be no bias or no perception of bias in giving their verdict. In the present case, the defendants did not deny their crime and it was apparently a matter of course that they would be convicted as charged. However, the jury decided that all four of the accused were innocent of the charges laid against them and acquitted the defendants. The verdict was called a perverse verdict (it occurs when a jury simply refuses to convict a defendant in defiance of the law and evidence before them).



Read our notes and cases on the English Legal System to learn more.