The case was heard by a District Judge who would have given a full and reasoned decision, but we don’t have a copy of it as yet (hopefully it will be published). We can quote the following from the BBC :
“District judge Tim Pattinson said the prosecution had failed to satisfy him that Ms Lucas had “the requisite knowledge” about the Section 14 order being in place.
On the obstruction charge, he said he did not hear any evidence that any “actual obstruction” of a vehicle or person was caused by the protest.
“I have already ruled that issues of climate change are irrelevant to the decisions I have to make in this trial,” he said.
“Having said this, I am quite prepared to accept, having heard the evidence from all five defendants, that they are sincere and highly motivated in their commitment to the cause of reduction of carbon emissions.“
It seems likely that there were plenty of arguments about Art 10 (freedom of expression) and Art 11 (freedom of assembly) as well as issues as to the right to peaceful protest under the common law. The Judge side-stepped and made a factual decision, which is perhaps not surprising – Judges hate having to address those issues as they are seen as inherently political (because they are). This urge to avoid anything political is all the stronger with the ECHR, for perhaps understandable reasons.