Why the JSO protestors got harsh sentences

An overview of the Judge's remarks

Earlier this week, at Southwark Crown Court, 5 members of Just Stop Oil were given lengthy prison sentences for conspiring to cause disruption on the M25, the London orbital motorway, in a direct action protest that took place during the 7 to 10th of November, i.e. 4 consecutive days.

The Guardian's legal commentator, Haroon Siddique, commented that:

The lengthy jail terms handed to five supporters of the Just Stop Oil (JSO) climate campaign on Thursday – believed to be the longest ever meted out in the UK for non-violent protest – have sent shock waves through the protest community and beyond.

The five-year sentence for Roger Hallam and four-year terms imposed on Daniel Shaw, Louise Lancaster, Lucia Whittaker De Abreu and Cressida Gethin are being seen by many as the latest heavy-handed response to protesters, particularly those urging action on the climate crisis.

Siddique is not wrong about people’s shocked reactions. For example, Michel Forst, the UN Special Rapporteur on environmental defenders under the Aarhus Convention, writes:

The gravity of today’s sentencing decision becomes glaringly obvious when considering the act for which Mr. Shaw has been sentenced: Mr. Shaw participated in a Zoom call that discussed climate change and the organizing of a peaceful environmental protest. This is the factual basis for Mr. Shaw’s conviction and sentence for “conspiracy to cause a public nuisance”. Put differently, today’s ruling by Judge Hehir at Southwark Crown Court means that, in the United Kingdom, participation in a Zoom call that discusses peaceful protest – in Mr. Shaw’s case, to call for an end to the continued issuance of oil and gas licenses in the United Kingdom – exposes the participants of the call to the risk of a lengthy prison sentence. How a sentence of this magnitude can be either reasonable, proportional or serve a legitimate public purpose is beyond comprehension.

In an opinion piece for the Guardian, wildlife TV presenter Chris Packham and Dale Vince (described as a green energy industrialist, campaigner, and Labour party donator), wrote:

So here’s a radical proposal. Let’s stop locking up our truth tellers. The people who are shouting “fire” because there’s a fire. When they see we’re not moving fast enough and that the flames are getting higher, they know their responsibility is to shout out the message louder. Because they care. You probably know who we mean.

These people might be annoying. They might give you an earache. We might wish they would tone it down. But in a democratic society, they do not belong in prison. We need to be listening to them, not locking them up.

In this context, I think it’s worth summarising the reasons the judge, Christopher Hehir, has given for imposing the sentences so readers can see for themselves how the judge justifies what many think of as harsh & unjust sentences. The reasons for the sentences are set out in the judge’s remarks. They can be grouped under the following categories:

• The disruption caused by JSO’s M25 protests.

• The extent of the campaigners’ involvement in organising the M25 protests.

• The level of disruption the JSO campaigners intended to cause.

• The campaigners’ prior convictions and violations of bail restrictions.

• The attitude the campaigners had towards breaking the law for their cause.

• Previous sentencing for similar protests.

Below I summarise the reasons under each of the above categories before making some closing remarks.

The disruption caused by the JSO M25 protests.

Judge Hehir made the following points about the protests (pages 1 - 3, clauses 3-8)¹:

• Over 45 protestors climbed or attempted to climb the gantries at various locations on the M25 forcing the closure of large sections of the motorway each day, causing long tail backs. Hehir described this as “massive disruption”.

• Evidence was presented at trial to quantify the disruption, apparently total road impact time was 121 hours and 45 minutes, the estimated total delay to road users was 50,856 hours, with 708,523 vehicles affected. The estimated economic cost was $769,966 plus the Metropolitan police alone incurred over £1 million in costs (other police forces were also involved).

• The jury heard evidence about the impact on some members of the public caught up in the disruption including:

  • people who missed flights

  • people who missed funerals

  • school students delayed for their mock exams

  • a special needs pupil who missed part of the school day and getting his medication, putting the taxi driver who was taking him to school at risk as the child could become volatile without his medication

  • other special needs students being delayed on their way to school

  • a patient with an aggressive form of cancer who missed an appointment at a cancer clinic and then had to wait a further 2 months for a new appointment

  • people who were late to work and had to work extra hours without pay to make up time

  • an HGV driver unable to deliver £5,000 worth of food to a hospital

  • an individual invited to the House of Lords to answers questions at the invitation of the All Party Paliamentary Group for Water. Hehir describes this as a ironic given the causes espoused by the campaigners.

  • a police motorcyclist who was knocked off his motorbike whilst on duty dealing with the protest. Although not seriously injured he had to take several days off work and the bike was written off - it was worth £13K.

The extent of the campaigners’ involvement in organising the M25 protests.

On this issue, the judge first summarised the evidence of the campaigners involvement that came from an audio & video recording of the main part of a Zoom call organised to arrange the meeting (pages 3 - 5, clauses ). The recording was recorded by an undercover reporter for The Sun and given to the police — the Judge expressed the belief that had this leak not happened the disruption would have been greater:

• All 5 campaigners spoke at the meeting to activists from JSO and other groups who were to take part in the disruption or considering doing so.

• The Zoom call revealed the existence of detailed arrangements for training those taking part in the disruption including an 8 hour climbing training session, resilience training and provision of legal advice. It had been preceded by several earlier calls.

• Roger Hallam gave a “pep talk” explaining why the participation in the protests was necessary and justified. The judge states that Hallam also revealed that he was at the very heart of planning and just how far the disruption was intended to go (see next section).

• Daniel Shaw chaired the meeting and the Judge claims that what he said showed he was intimately involved in organising recruitment and training of the protestors.

• Judge Hehir claims that Louise Lancaster, Lucia Whittaker de Abreu & Cressida Gethin played the role of inspiring would-be climbers of the gantries by describing their own previous experiences of similar protests. Each of them apparently revealed both familiarity with and enthusiasm with what was planned for the M25 protests.

• Roger Hallam and Daniel Shaw’s involvement in the conspiracy was proven simply by reference to the involvement in the Zoom call.

Hehir then goes on to outline further evidence of the other campaigners’ involvement in the conspiracy:

• Louise Lancaster apparently rented accommodation at one of 2 “safe houses” in London for those who were to climb the gantries and purchased “a considerable amount” of specialist equipment for the climbers.

• Lucia Whittaker de Abreu & Cressida Gethin apparently were arrested on separate days (8th and 10th November respectively) in the vicinity of the M25 in circumstances demonstrating the intent to climb the gantries and remain there for as long as you could. Both were dressed accordingly and possessed the climbing equipment.

The level of disruption the JSO campaigners intended to cause.

Here the Judge quotes Hallam from the Zoom call, as per the screenshot below of clause 29, from page 8:

Hehir goes on to make the following points to emphasise the potential disruption such gridlock might cause:

• The M25 intersects with 9 other motorways and several major A-roads going into and out from London. 4 of London’s airports lie close to the M25 with many of those working at or using those airports using the M25 to travel to and from them.

• Such gridlock would likely cause “mass road disruption” in London and South East England with major implications for e.g. food supplies and the maintenance of law & order.

• If such gridlock had occurred, sentences near the maximum of 10 years would have been warranted and that whilst this is not the position here, the sentencing code requires the judge to consider not just the harm that was actually caused by a protest but the harm that was intended to be caused.

The campaigners’ prior convictions and violations of bail restrictions.

On this issue the following points were made (clause 33, page 10/11):

• Each of the campaigners had previous convictions for direct action protests.

• The campaigners knew that climbing the gantries violates at least one of the injunctions granted in favour of National Highways LTD by the High Court.

• Each of the campaigners was in violation of bail for at least one other set of proceedings when they committed the offence.

The attitude the campaigners had towards breaking the law for their cause.

Hehir made the following points (clauses 35 - 46, pages 11-13):

• Hehir does not believe that the conscientous motives of the campaigners permits leniency in this case, though he acknowledges the non-violent nature of the protest and that such motives can suggest leniency in some cases.

• He described the offence as a “conspiracy to cause extreme and disproportionate disruption”, and doesn’t regard other cases where leniency has been shown in sentencing as providing assistance in this case.

• Hehir acknowledges the consensus that man-made climate change exists and actions is required to mitigate its effects and risks.

• However, he accuses the campaigners of crossing the line from concerned campaigner to fanatic and appointing themselves as sole arbiters of what should be done about climate change bound neither by principles of democracy or the rule of law.

• Hehir states that this fanaticism makes the campaingers heedless of the rights of their fellow citizens, and have taken it upon themselves to decide that fellow citizens must suffer disruption and harm, simply so the campaigners can parade their views.

• Hehir reasons that because the campaigners’ perspective is that criminal law doesn’t really matter because of climate change, and because they think the harm caused by breaking the law is justified with reference to their goals, there is a real risk of them re-offending in pursuit of their objectives, unless deterred by exemplary sentences in this case and that others who share the campaigners’ outlook will also hopefully be deterred from doing as the campaigners did.

Previous sentencing for similar protests.

Hehir makes the following points:

• Whilst the offence is a new offence, there was guidance both in terms of the sentencing code and a previous case of causing public nuisance.

• In the previous case, a similar protest action was involved which occurred about a month or so before the offence in question. The 2 protestors climbed to the top of the Dartford Bridge, unfurled a “Just Stop Oil” banner and remained there for 36 hours.

• When the protestors appealed their sentences, the Court of Appeal and Criminal Division found that the sentences of 3 years and 2 years 9 months handed out were severe but not manifestly excessive or disproportionate.

• Hehir asserts that the campaigners’ position is far more serious than it was for the appellants in the earlier case, as they were convicted of a substantive offence where the campaigners were convicted of a conspiracy going beyond a single act of protest, however disruptive.

• Hehir also points out that the intended disruption was far greater the disruption actually achieved too, as outlined in the section above where the intent to cause gridlock is set out.

Closing Remarks

I have covered the main points in the sentencing remarks above, but it’s worth reading the whole document to get the full picture of why the judge imposed the sentences as he did. Clearly he views the campaigners actions as having been very disruptive and their intended impact (gridlock encircling London) as being of major concern.

This case thus raises questions about how far campaigners should go when engaging in non-violent direct action, what the law & associated punishments should be for deliberately causing widespread disruption and to what extent a just cause can legitimise actions such as aiming to cause gridlock on a motorway that encircles a city of millions of people such. I intend to address these issues in some followup posts on the case and on the right to peaceful protest.

1. The PDF file doesn’t allow direct copy pasting of the text (I suspect they’re images), hence I am summarising/paraphrasing most of the material. Apologies for any mistakes I may have made in doing so.