Protesters challenging sentences acted ‘out of sacrifice’, Court of Appeal told
Sixteen climate protesters jailed for up to five years are seeking to appeal against their sentences as being ‘manifestly excessive’.
More than a dozen climate protesters jailed for up to five years for their involvement in various demonstrations “did what they did out of sacrifice” and should have their sentences reduced, the Court of Appeal has heard.
Sixteen activists received prison sentences of between five years and 15 months in July and August last year for their roles in four demonstrations held by Just Stop Oil (JSO) between August and November 2022, including climbing on gantries over the M25 and throwing soup over Vincent van Gogh’s Sunflowers.
The group is bidding to appeal against the length of their sentences at a hearing on Wednesday, with their lawyers telling the Court of Appeal that the sentences were “manifestly excessive”, breached their human rights, and should have taken into account their “conscientious motivation”.
The Crown Prosecution Service is opposing the appeal bids, claiming the sentences were not “wrong in law”.
Danny Friedman KC, one of several lawyers representing the group, said some sentences were “the highest of their kind in modern British history”, and others were “considerably longer than one would have expected”.
He said that if the sentences were allowed to stand, it would mark a “paradigm shift in this area of criminal law sentencing”, and all involved “peaceful protest”.
The court was told that the protesters “acted in the knowledge that they would be prosecuted”, but “none of the applicants acted out of self-interest”.
He said: “What these applicants did by way of collective, non-violent protest, whether one likes it or not, was for the interests of the public, of the planet, and of future generations.”
He continued: “They did what they did out of sacrifice.”
In joint written submissions, barristers for the protesters said: “All cases concern custodial sentences for acts of civil disobedience on conscientious grounds.
“They are the only known examples of punishment of peaceful protesters in which no reduction at all was made for such motivation.”
Roger Hallam, co-founder of JSO and Extinction Rebellion – another environmental campaign group, was jailed for five years for agreeing to disrupt traffic by having protesters climb onto gantries over the M25 for four successive days.
Daniel Shaw, Louise Lancaster, Lucia Whittaker De Abreu, and Cressida Gethin each received four-year jail terms for their involvement in the same protest.
George Simonson, Theresa Higginson, Paul Bell, Gaie Delap and Paul Sousek were imprisoned for between two years and 20 months for their involvement in protests on the M25, during which they climbed onto gantries over the motorway.
Larch Maxey, Chris Bennett, Samuel Johnson and Joe Howlett were jailed for between three years and 15 months after occupying tunnels dug under the road leading to the Navigator Oil Terminal in Thurrock, Essex.
Phoebe Plummer and Anna Holland were sentenced to two years and 20 months respectively after almost “destroying” Vincent van Gogh’s Sunflowers by throwing soup on its protective glass at London’s National Gallery.
Many of the protesters watched proceedings via video link from several prisons, with dozens of campaigners appearing outside the Royal Courts of Justice and watching proceedings in court, including wildlife TV presenter and conservationist Chris Packham and former Green Party leader Caroline Lucas.
Speaking to the PA news agency, Mr Packham said that the sentences represented an “assault on democracy” and that “everyone should be able to retain that right to peacefully protest in this country”.
Environmental campaign groups Friends of the Earth (FoE) and Greenpeace UK are intervening in the case, previously stating that the sentences posed a “serious threat to our democracy”.
But in joint written submissions, barristers for the Crown Prosecution Service said the sentences were “neither wrong in law nor manifestly excessive”.
They said: “It is clear that the ‘dialogue’ or ‘bargain’ which merits leniency, on the one hand, is conditional on the protesters exercising moderation in the harm they cause on the other, so as to establish the necessary moral difference between them and ‘ordinary lawbreakers’.”
They continued: “Where offenders actively reject the ‘bargain’ by making clear they reject the citizen’s obligation to obey the law and respect the rights of their fellow citizens by engaging in ever-more disruptive campaigns, by breaching existing legal obligations, such as injunctions, or through disruptive conduct during legal proceedings as a continuing form of protest, and by stating their intention to continue breaking the law, a court would be justified in concluding there is little or no prospect of a successful dialogue preventing further offending through leniency, and that deterrence is required in order to protect the public.”
The hearing before The Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr, Mr Justice Lavender and Mr Justice Griffiths is set to conclude on Thursday.
