Court of Appeal upholds harsh climate protest sentences
The Court of Appeal has upheld the harsh sentences handed down to climate protesters, setting a precedent for non-violent protest to receive tougher penalties.
At an unusual mass appeal in January 16 Just Stop Oil (JSO) protesters serving a total of 41 years in four separate cases, claimed their unduly harsh sentences undermined their right to protest.
In a ruling on March 7, the court slightly reduced the sentences of six protesters, including Quaker Gaie Delap, as “manifestly excessive" but dismissed the other 10 protesters' appeals.
Delap, 78, from Bristol, was originally sentenced to 20 months for climbing onto gantries over the M25, but had her sentence reduced to 18 months.
The sentences received by the 16 JSO protesters for peaceful actions including throwing soup at Van Gogh's Sunflowers, are usually reserved for protests including violence.
Conscientious motivation
However, the Lady Chief Justice Sue Carr did rule that the sentencing judge had not considered the protesters' conscientious motivation when assessing their "culpability".
"Some attention must be paid to conscientious motivation, although much less than would have been the case had the offending been less disproportionate," she said.
The creeping ban on defendants discussing their motives in their defence has been part of a crackdown on environmental protest in the UK.
Britain arrests environmental protestors at nearly three times the average global rate, research last December found.
New legislation including the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 and the Public Order Act 2023, means almost any protest can be defined as seriously disruptive.
Causing “public nuisance", the offence in many of the recent mass appeal cases, now carries a maximum 10-year prison sentence.
Peaceful tactics like locking on, tunnelling and causing “serious annoyance" have been criminalised.
Oliver Robertson, head of witness and worship at Quakers in Britain, said: “Quaker faith includes action to build a better world.
“We welcome the ruling that defendants must be able to talk about their conscientious motivation, but we are seriously concerned about the ongoing stifling of dissent.
“Anyone who cares about what corporations and those in power do, or don't do, should be alarmed about their freedom to speak out."