When protesters block a private access road, have they obstructed a "right that may be exercised or enjoyed by the public at large"? On 14 July 2026 the Supreme Court said no — and acquitted six defendants of the new statutory offence of public nuisance. In R v McCafferty and others [2026] UKSC 20, the Court gave its first ruling on section 78 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which replaced the common law offence.
What the case was about
On 8 September 2022, "Animal Rebellion" protesters blocked the entrance to a Müller dairy works on the Stonebridge Cross Industrial Estate near Droitwich (paras 3–4), chaining or gluing themselves in place so that for around four hours no vehicles could enter or leave, stranding night-shift staff (para 6). The road, Pointon Way, is a private "no through road" marked "PRIVATE LAND" (paras 4–5). Section 78's first limb catches conduct creating a risk of serious harm; the second catches obstruction of "a right that may be exercised or enjoyed by the public at large" (para 7). The Crown charged only the second limb, avoiding any need to prove serious harm (para 8). HHJ Jackson at Worcester Crown Court ruled no case to answer (para 9); the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) allowed the prosecution's appeal (para 10); the defendants appealed on a certified question (para 11).
What the Supreme Court decided
Lord Leggatt (with Lord Reed, Lady Simler and Lord Doherty agreeing; Lord Sales concurring) allowed the appeal (paras 77–80). The word "right" carries a narrow meaning: what distinguishes a private way from a highway is precisely that the public has no right to use it, so obstructing passage on it cannot be the second-limb offence (paras 1–2). Lord Sales, concurring, gave particular weight to the principle against "doubtful penalisation" — no penalty except under clear law — for an offence carrying up to ten years (paras 118–122). The Court rejected the Crown's late bid to amend the indictment (paras 78–80). The no-case ruling was restored and the defendants acquitted (para 80).
Why it matters
Blocking private access is not automatically statutory public nuisance (paras 1–2); the first "serious harm" limb was available but not run (para 8); and a serious offence was read narrowly under the presumption against doubtful penalisation (paras 118–122).
Explore the underlying law on Search the Law: statutory public nuisance under section 78 · the presumption against doubtful penalisation.
Read the full judgment: R v McCafferty and others [2026] UKSC 20 (The National Archives).