>They each accepted taking part in the protest and cited in their defence “reasonable excuse”, and their rights under Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights to freedom of speech and freedom to protest. >The defendants argued it was a peaceful protest, that the rights of others were not “greatly interfered with”, that care had been taken in choosing the type of powder to use, there was no lasting damage to the stones and that protesting about fossil fuels was a legitimate cause. >Judge Paul Dugdale told the jury in his legal directions they had to assess where the “balance lies” in the case and whether a conviction would be a “proportionate interference” with the defendants’ rights. >“In any society there will be those whose opinions we agree with and those whose opinions we disagree,” he said. “The essence of a free society and freedom of speech is that everyone’s entitled to express their opinion even when we disagree with what they say. >“If individuals disagree with what our government is doing on certain matters, they are entitled to protest about the government’s actions or inactions. >“All of this is the essence of our free society. It’s how our society has developed over the centuries, and the reality is we are very fortunate to live in a free society. >“There are times when protecting the right to freedom of speech and freedom to protest can mean that activity that would otherwise be unlawful would be regarded as lawful by the court to protect those rights.”