## Facts

- In early 2003, anti-war protesters entered or attempted to disrupt UK military facilities connected with the impending invasion of Iraq.
- The conduct included trespass, interfering with equipment, and property damage; some incidents involved attempts to damage vehicles or equipment.
- Prosecutors charged various defendants with offences including conspiracy to cause criminal damage, criminal damage, attempted arson, possessing articles for criminal damage, and aggravated trespass.
- Defendants argued they acted to prevent the international crime of aggression allegedly being committed by the United Kingdom and its allies.
- Defendants sought to rely on aggression to support statutory and common-law defences, including reasonable force to prevent crime, lawful excuse, necessity, and (for aggravated trespass) acting in relation to an “offence.”

## Issues

1. Whether the customary international law crime of aggression forms part of the domestic criminal law of England and Wales.
2. Whether “crime” in Criminal Law Act 1967 § 3 (reasonable force in prevention of crime) and “offence” in Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 § 68 (aggravated trespass) include the international crime of aggression.
3. Whether a domestic common-law offence of aggression should be recognized by judicial decision.
4. If aggression were a domestic crime/offence, whether it could provide a legal basis for the defendants’ proposed defences to property and trespass-related charges.

## Decision

- The House of Lords dismissed the appeals.
- The international crime of aggression did not constitute a domestic criminal offence triable in English courts.
- “Crime” in the 1967 Act and “offence” in the 1994 Act were construed as referring to offences recognized by domestic law, not unincorporated international crimes.
- The court declined to create a new common-law offence of aggression, concluding that establishing such an offence was for Parliament.
- Because aggression was not a domestic crime/offence, the defendants could not rely on it to support statutory defences premised on prevention of crime or to defeat aggravated trespass and related charges.

## Legal Principles

- Customary international law does not, without legislative action, automatically create new domestic criminal offences enforceable in domestic courts.
- Statutory terms such as “crime” and “offence,” when used to authorize force or define defences, presumptively refer to domestic offences unless Parliament clearly provides otherwise.
- Courts should not create serious new criminal offences—particularly those with major implications for foreign affairs and high policy—through common-law development; that decision lies with the legislature.
- A defendant cannot base domestic criminal-law defences on an alleged international crime that has not been incorporated into domestic law as an offence.

## Conclusion

The House of Lords held that aggression, though recognized in international law, was not a domestic offence in England and Wales and therefore could not supply a predicate “crime” or “offence” for statutory or related defences; any domestic criminalization of aggression required parliamentary enactment.


Regina v. Jones, [2006] UKHL 16 (H.L. 2006)