Over 1,000 people blocked the road outside the Royal Court of Justice, but why were they protesting?
TV nature presenter, Chris Packham, celebrity chef, Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall and satirical online political commentator, Jonathan Pie (Tom Walker), along with over 1,000 other people took to the street on Thursday 30 January blocking the road outside the Royal Court of Justice. Protesters sat in silence on the road holding placards showing the names of climate political prisoners.
The peaceful protest was organised by Defend our Juries but were joined by numerous climate groups including Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion. The protest took place as the mass appeal of 16 Just Stop Oil protesters was heard inside. These 16 have a combined sentence of 41 years. This includes Roger Hallam, who was involved in the planning of a protest, who received a sentence of 5 years, a British record for a non-violent protest.
What is the Defend our Juries movement?
Defend our Juries covers more than just climate issues. It is a movement that seeks to protect the constitutional principle of jury equity. That is, a jury’s absolute right to acquit a defendant based on their conscience, regardless of the judge’s direction. This has been used previously by juries to acquit climate, Palestinian rights and racial justice protesters.
As a result, judges and the previous Conservative government resorted to increasingly authoritarian means to prevent this from happening. This included banning protesters from using the words ‘climate change’ in their trial and removing the ‘consent’ defence for criminal damage, that had been in law since 1971. This was a defence used successfully by climate protesters arguing that the owners of property would have consented to the damage if they had known the extent of it and the circumstances. Following numerous acquittals using this defence, the Conservative Attorney General, Victoria Prentis, pushed successfully to have this legal defence removed in March 2024.
This was just the latest step in the crackdown on protesters’ rights by the Conservative government. In September 2022, then-Attorney General, Suella Braverman, lobbied the Court of Appeal to remove the human rights defence for those who caused “significant” criminal damage.
A major moment in the Conservative government’s increasingly draconian approach to protests was the passing of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. This legislation was responsible for the imprisonment of 14 of the 16 Just Stop Oil protesters. It increased the level of conditions the police can impose on protesters, introduced new criminal offences specifically targeting climate protesters and gave police powers to search people at protests without grounds for suspicion. Human Rights Watch have condemned the Act and the sentences handed out to climate protesters.
These developments inspired retired social worker, Trudi Warner, to undertake a peaceful, non-violent action in response. On 27 March 2023, she stood outside Inner London Crown Court holding a placard that read:
‘Jurors you have the absolute right to acquit a defendant according to your conscience.’
For this, she was arrested. Her placard referenced a plaque inside the Old Bailey that states ‘the right of juries to give their verdict according to their convictions.’ Despite this, the Attorney General attempted to argue that Warner interfered with administration of justice and acted in contempt of court. After a year of legal proceedings, the case against Warner was eventually dismissed. The High Court ruled Warner’s action was ‘consistent with information sharing.’
Warner’s actions inspired a nationwide movement, with the latest event taking place on 30 January 2025.
Related Posts
- Silence is not an option: The power of protest in the fight against climate change
- Should moral innocence triumph over the law?
- Chris Packham: Is It Time to Break the Law?
Who are the prisoners?
The sixteen protestors in court appealing their sentences included the “Whole Truth Five” who were imprisoned for their roles in planning non-violent disruption on the M25. So called, because they refused to leave the witness box until they told the juries the whole truth about their actions with regards to the climate emergency. They were repeatedly arrested and jailed for this on orders of the judge receiving the following sentences:
- Roger Hallam, 5 years
- Cressida Gethin, 4 years
- Louise Lancaster, 4 years
- Daniel Shaw, 4 years
- Lucia Whittaker De Abreu, 4 years
The five were convicted of conspiracy intentionally to cause a public nuisance, contrary to section 78 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 and section 1 of the Criminal Law Act 1977. Hallam’s sentence was longer as he was viewed as the leader of the “conspiracy.”
Also in court were the protestors who climbed onto a gantry over the M25 in November 2022 and pleaded guilty to ‘causing a public nuisance’ under the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act. George Simonson and Theresa Higginson had received harsh sentences of two years, while Paul Bell was jailed for 22 months. Gaie Delap and Paul Sousek were incarcerated for 20 months.
The “Navigator Tunnellers” Larch Maxey, Chris Bennett, Samuel Johnson and Joe Howlett, who, in August 2022, occupied tunnels dug under the road leading to the Navigator Oil Terminal in Thurrock, Essex were appealing against their sentences of between 15 – 36 months.
These four were convicted of ‘conspiracy to cause a public nuisance’ also under the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act. A fifth, Xavier Trimmer-Gonzalez, was involved in this action. However, he tragically took his own life aged just 22 whilst under strict curfew and being subjected to invasive electronic monitoring.
Finally, in court appealing their sentences were Anna Holland and Phoebe Plummer, the pair who threw soup on the glass protecting Van Gogh’s Sunflowers painting, had been convicted of causing criminal damage exceeding £5,000 and given prison sentences of 20 months and two years respectively. Plummer had received extra time due to her involvement in previous climate protests.
What was the outcome?
Baroness Carr, Mr Justice Lavender and Mr Justice Griffiths will hand down their judgment at a later date. This is expected to be between one and six weeks.
The appeals are based on a variety of legal arguments. These include failures to apply relevant legislation, misapplying legislation to increase severity of supposed crimes and handing low-risk people custodial sentences. This last point is especially irresponsible given the current shortage of prison places.
Various human rights groups have been critical of the sentences imposed on climate protesters. Michael Forst, the UN special rapporteur on environmental defenders, called the protest laws introduced by the previous Conservative government, ‘regressive.’ Amnesty International called the sentences ‘draconian’ and said the increasing crackdown on protests ‘violates all our human rights.’
Indeed, the sentences handed down to the climate protesters do represent a major escalation in the treatment of non-violent protesters. During the Trident Ploughshares campaign, sentences for protesters disrupting military facilities rarely exceeded a year. The Guardian provides a historic summary of prison sentences for non-violent protesters; none come anywhere near the sentences received by climate protesters.
This is a worrying trend that undermines our democratic rights. If these sentences are upheld, it would set a dangerous precedent for future protesters. In an era of rising authoritarianism across the globe, we should be calling on our government to ensure our rights are protected.