We Took Our Fight to the Supreme Court — And We Won

Tuesday 14th July, 2026. Six defendants (Alberto, Catherine, James, Oshy, Sarah and Tatum) won Animal Rising’s first ever Supreme Court Case. A case that has been four years in the making. This is not only a huge win for the defendants directly involved (who have now been officially acquitted!), but undoubtedly a victory for democracy and our right to protest across the UK. This comes at a time in which these victories in court are more rare and needed than ever before.

The matter presented to the court was one surrounding the use of ‘Public Nuisance’ charges, which have been sweepingly and indiscriminately weaponised against protests. The question at hand, as summarised by the Supreme Court itself, was the following:

‘Does obstructing access to, and exit from, a private site by blocking a private road leading up to it involve an interference with “rights that may be exercised or enjoyed by the public at large” for the purposes of the statutory offence of public nuisance?’

The answer is clearly no. Yet this is the argument that made its way all the way up to the Supreme Court. Let me tell you exactly how we got there, and what this means for protest rights going forwards.

How did this case end up in the Supreme Court?

In September 2022, Animal Rising (then called Animal Rebellion) carried out the ‘Stop the Supply’ direct action campaign targeting the dairy industry. Our aim was to highlight the environmental destruction and cruelty of the industry while asking for a transition to a just and sustainable plant-based food system. This campaign was incredibly ambitious, and saw almost 200 people target Dairy Distribution Centres across the UK (specifically dairy giants ARLA and Müller) over a two week span.

The campaign featured a variety of tactics including public-facing actions and obstructing dairy distribution centres, leading to disruptions in the supply chain and creating a much needed national conversation.

This is the role of direct action. When we exist in times of crisis, and those in leadership positions have demonstrated time and time again that they will not act in the best interest of people, animals and the planet. We have a responsibility to do what is right, to bring these issues to the public consciousness and build the better, kinder and sustainable future that we know is possible. And that is exactly what the six people surrounding this case did.

This landmark case took four years of legal work, campaigning and public support. Right now, we have just two weeks left to unlock £75,000 for Animal Rising’s campaigns through a matched funding opportunity. If we reach our target for new monthly donations by the end of July, this funding will help us challenge animal exploitation, support campaigners through the courts and build the campaigns that create lasting change.

Become a monthly supporter

When Public Nuisance became a weapon against protest

2022 saw a rapid and drastic political shift, very notably regarding the tolerance (or lack thereof) towards protest and dissent. The clearest example of this was the introduction of the ‘Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act’. This act has been heavily criticised, with some of the main focus being the arguments that it infringes on fundamental civil liberties and introduces disproportionate sentencing. Not only this, but it is purposely vague in nature, leaving the way it is applied open to abuse, which is exactly what happened.

Following Animal Rising’s ‘Stop the Supply’ campaign, hundreds of people were arrested and faced charges. While this was not entirely a surprise, what did catch us off guard was the severity of the charges that individuals were suddenly facing. Actions that would have previously resulted in summary only offences such as Aggravated Trespass, were now resulting in Public Nuisance charges, which carry a maximum of 10 years in prison.

This was the charge faced by our defendants. Charged with Public Nuisance for obstructing a private entrance/exit, to a private company on a private road not accessible to the wider public. This is why when it came to their trial at Worcester Crown Court in May 2025, our defence lawyers submitted a half-time submission. They argued that the prosecution had failed to prove that public nuisance was committed, because due to the targeted design of the protest, the defendants did not obstruct the public from enjoying their rights (a key part of public nuisance).

The judge ultimately agreed and the defendants were acquitted. However the prosecution was not willing to accept this and took the matter to the court of appeal, which on this occasion agreed with the prosecution, and meant our action takers could face trial for the same action yet again. We counter-appealed, eventually taking this case all the way up to the Supreme Court, the highest court in the UK.

Why we chose to fight the appeal

This was in many ways, not an easy decision to make. Due to the hostile political landscape we are living in, taking cases to higher courts has in many ways has become a calculated gamble that could easily back-fire. Wins for protest cases are rare, and can end up setting precedents either watering down, or stripping away the few legal defences we have left, as we have seen through the courts use of terror laws against campaign group Palestine Action this year. If we lost the appeal, it would give the go-ahead for Public Nuisance to be used as a blanket charge across protest cases up and down the country.

Yet despite the risk we continued forwards. The case felt so straightforward and common sense that we believed it provided us with the perfect opportunity to challenge this law and set a precedent which would introduce clear boundaries and limitations towards the indiscriminate use of Public Nuisance against protest cases.

The judgment

And so, on the 21st of April of this year we had our hearing at the Supreme Court, where our lawyers argued that the prosecution was abusing the public nuisance charge -utilising it far beyond the limits of what is permissible within its scope of power. Then, we were left waiting for a decision. Months passed until finally, on the 14th July we heard we had a judgment. All five judges unanimously supported our appeal!

This momentous ruling explicitly affirms that these laws cannot be stretched to silence dissent or target those exposing systemic harm. It sets clear boundaries in place to offer protection and legal defences to those taking action. And importantly, it is a reminder to keep on going.

The work continues

It took us four years and a whole lot of perseverance to get this result, but we did it. We never gave up. Throughout history we have seen countless people who fought for progress and justice face similar challenges to those now before us. We know that the journey ahead will not always be an easy one. We continue to live in an increasingly hostile and divisive political landscape, the climate crisis is more palpable than ever, and we continue to see the exploitation of animals deeply embedded in our everyday lives.

But alongside these challenges, we remember that we hold inherent power in ourselves, and even more so when we are united. We must continue to support one another and stay grounded in who we are fighting for and the world that we know is possible. One that is more loving and just. In which animals are respected, and the natural world thrives. Let this judgment be a reminder to all of us that when we come together, and persevere, change is possible.

Become a monthly supporter

About the Author
Claudia Penna Rojas joined Animal Rising in 2020 and supports campaigners working across animal protection, environmental, civil liberties and human rights movements. She works closely with people navigating the legal system after taking action for a fairer, kinder world.