This is what they said:
In the High Court of Justice Queen’s Bench Division Administrative Court
co Ref: 00/3570/2015
in the matter of an application for Judicial Review
The Queen on the application of DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
STRATFORD MAGISTRATES COURT
Interested Parties: (1) ANGELA DITCHFIELD (2) ISA ABDULLA (3) THOMAS FRANKLIN (4) LAURA BUTLER (5) SUSANNA MENGESHA (6) BRAM VRANKEN (7) LUIS TORREJON (8) JAVIER NEIDHART
NOTIFICATION of the Judge's decision (CPR Part 54.11, 54.12)
Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant and the Acknowledgement(s) of Service filed by the Defendant and interested Parties
Order by The Honourable Mrs Justice Jefford
Permission is hereby granted
1. The interested Parties were charged with offences of wilfuily obstructing the highway contrary to s. 137 of the Highways Act 1980 in trying to obstruct vehicles headed to the Defence Security Exhibition. Their defence was that they were using reasonable force to prevent illegal arms sales and/or crimes committed overseas.
2. Having regard to the authorities relied on in the Claimant's application tor permission, in particular, R v Jones. Birch v DPP and Barkshire. it is reasonably arguable that the learned District Judge was wrong in law in finding that a defence under 5.3(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 was available to the Interested Parties in the circumstances of this case and in acquitting them. The issue is also one of general public importance.
3. Further or alternatively, it is reasonably arguable that the learned District Judge was wrong in law in refusing to state a case on the grounds that the Claimant grounds of appeal were frivolous.