Climate Activists Sentenced: A Deep Dive into the Just Stop Oil Case

Five members of the climate change group Just Stop Oil have been sentenced to up to five years in prison after being convicted of conspiracy to cause a public nuisance. This case has sparked a debate on whether this is a stifling of the right to protest or an appropriate response to major disruptions to UK infrastructure. Let’s delve into the facts, the judge’s sentencing remarks, and the potential for a successful appeal.

Key Takeaways

• Five members of Just Stop Oil were sentenced to up to five years in prison for conspiracy to cause a public nuisance.
• The offense is relatively new, under Section 78 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing, and Courts Act of 2022.
• The group planned to disrupt traffic on the M25 Motorway by having protesters climb onto gantries.
• The judge cited six aggravating factors, including previous convictions and the high level of disruption caused.
• The sentences are likely to be upheld if appealed, as they are not considered manifestly excessive.

The Facts of the Case

Five individuals—Roger Hallam, Daniel Shaw, Luis Lancaster, Lucia Whitaker de Abu, and Crescor Gethin—were charged with conspiracy to cause a public nuisance. This offense is contrary to Section 78 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing, and Courts Act of 2022. The group, known for disruptive protests, aimed to promote their climate change message and influence government policy.

The specific offense involved a conspiracy to disrupt traffic on the M25 Motorway by having protesters climb onto gantries, causing gridlock. The key evidence was an audio and video recording of a Zoom meeting on November 2, 2022, recorded by an undercover journalist from The Sun newspaper. This meeting was to arrange protests leading to significant disruption.

The Judge’s Sentencing Remarks

The judge outlined the specific contributions of each group member. Roger Hallam gave a lengthy pep talk justifying the protests. Daniel Shaw chaired the meeting and was involved in organizing recruitment and training. The other three inspired would-be climbers based on their own experiences.

As a result of the group’s actions, 45 protesters climbed or attempted to climb gantries on the M25 between November 7 and 10, 2022, causing an estimated £750,000 in economic costs and significant public disruption.

On July 18, 2024, Roger Hallam was sentenced to five years imprisonment, while the others received four years each. The judge’s sentencing remarks, spanning 23 pages, provide detailed reasoning for these sentences.

Sentencing Guidelines and Aggravating Factors

There are no definitive sentencing guidelines for the offense of conspiracy to cause a public nuisance, as it is a new offense. In such cases, judges refer to case law. The judge cited the case of The Crown v. Troland and Dea (2023), where the Court of Appeal confirmed that sentences of three years and two years nine months were not manifestly excessive for similar offenses.

The judge found the defendants’ actions more serious, citing six aggravating factors, including the high level of disruption and previous convictions for direct action protests. The judge also considered the aims of the group but concluded that leniency was not appropriate due to the extreme disruption planned.

Individual Sentences and Potential for Appeal

Roger Hallam had a substantial criminal record and was under a suspended sentence for a previous offense. He was deemed the most serious offender and received a five-year sentence. Daniel Shaw was deeply involved in organizing the conspiracy and hoped for massive disruption. Lucia Whitaker de Abu, Luis Lancaster, and Crescor Gethin had previous convictions and were under suspended sentences. They each received four-year sentences.

All individuals will serve half of their sentences before automatic release, standard in most criminal cases. They can appeal their sentences, but the Court of Appeal will only overturn them if they are manifestly excessive. Given the Court of Appeal’s previous rulings, it is unlikely that these sentences will be deemed excessive.

Conclusion

The judge found that the group’s actions caused a very high level of disruption, had previous convictions, and offered little mitigation. The sentences of five years for Roger Hallam and four years for the others were deemed appropriate. What do you think about these sentences? Are they too harsh, or justified given the disruption caused? Let us know in the comments below.