The objective test was confirmed again in R v Hill and Hall (1998) 89 Cr App R 74. In that case, the accused, a nuclear protestor, was arrested outside a nuclear submarine base. She was in possession of a hacksaw blade, which she intended to use to cut through the wire. She was charged under the CDA 1971, s 3 and unsuccessfully raised the defence under the CDA 1971, s 5(2)(b) that she was acting in order to persuade the Americans to leave the base, to reduce the threat of a nuclear strike, and thus protect her property. The court held that cutting the wire was far too remote from the eventual aim of protecting property to satisfy the test.