Activists who stole King’s lambs say Charles ‘would have consented to their rescue’

Three animal rights campaigners have been found guilty of stealing three lambs from the King’s Sandringham Estate.

Rosa Sharkey, 26, Sarah Foy, 26, and Rose Patterson, 37, claimed in a prepared statement provided to police that they believed Charles "would have consented to the lambs’ rescue".

Despite contending that they had not acted dishonestly, the trio were convicted of theft following a trial at Norwich Crown Court.

Jurors spent three hours and 48 minutes deliberating before returning their unanimous verdicts on Thursday.

Addressing the court as the defendants listened from the back row, the judge, Anthony Bate, said: "I have in mind a community order and some unpaid work."

The women were directed to meet with a probation service worker and could face sentencing later on Thursday afternoon.

As they departed the courtroom, the defendants shared hugs with supporters in the public gallery.

Dressed in pink Animal Rising T-shirts, the group removed the livestock from a field at Appleton Farm in Norfolk on 24 May 2023.

A fourth person, who was not on trial and was identified in court by Patterson only as "Ben", drove the animals to a sanctuary in a van.

The next day, the three women travelled to Windsor Castle in an attempt to inform police officers of their actions.

They subsequently proceeded to Windsor police station when armed officers outside the royal residence declined to engage with them.

Sharkey, from Brighton, Foy, from Alfreton, Derbyshire, and Patterson, who stated she lives in London, had denied the theft of the sheep.

During the trial, the judge told jurors that if they felt sure a defendant acted dishonestly "only then would the indicted charge of theft be proved against them".

"That’s the disputed issue for you to resolve," he said.

In his closing speech, prosecutor Dingle Clark described as an "obvious nonsense that the owner would have consented" to the removal of the lambs.

He said: "The prosecution say this was plainly dishonest. The reason why it was dishonest is they were taking something which didn’t belong to them.

"They had to put a door over a fence and they did it… to publicise their views."