As is by now widely known, five individuals acting under the auspices of Just Stop Oil were sentenced two days ago to sentences of imprisonment for (variously) four and five years, as a result of findings of guilt relating to charges of conspiracy intentionally to cause a public nuisance. The public nuisance in question was with regard to a plan to disrupt traffic on the M25 motorway round London by encouraging protestors to climb gantries over the motorway.
The media reportage
Views expressed in the media as to the appropriateness of the prison sentences handed down vary greatly depending on the newspaper reporting on the case. However, the usual suspects are incandescent regarding the outcome of the case, railing against what they claim is a profound injustice.
Chris Packham and Dale Vince, writing in the Guardian (naturally) tell us that we may find Just Stop Oil to be annoying, but they do not deserve to be in prison, and that a society that locks them up cannot be called democratic. “Complete madness”, they say. “It is a disgrace and a stain on our country that our courts have been co-opted to do the fossil fuel industry’s dirty work.” Apparently, they are guilty of nothing more than causing us ear ache and being annoying.
Then there’s Michel Forst, UN Special Rapporteur on environmental defenders under the Aarhus Convention. He has issued a statement concerning the four year prison sentence handed down to Daniel Shaw, one of the five defendants in the case. According to Mr Forst:
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…
...What happened to Mr. Shaw today is unacceptable, both from a legal and a societal standpoint. A young man has been sent to prison for four years due to his decision to come together with others to discuss how to prompt government action through entirely peaceful means to address the serious threats posed by the climate crisis. This sentence should shock the conscience of any member of the public. It should also put all of us on high alert on the state of civic rights and freedoms in the United Kingdom. One must ask what comes next when an individual like Mr. Shaw who sought to exercise his right to peacefully raise his concerns about the existential threats posed by the climate crisis and the failure of his own government to take adequate steps in response is treated like a serious criminal and put behind bars for four years. Rulings like today’s set a very dangerous precedent, not just for environmental protest but any form of peaceful protest that may, at one point or another, not align with the interests of the government of the day.
Unlike Mr Forst, I did not attend the trial (he says he was there for two days), but I well remember the disruption caused by the protests organised by the defendants, and I have read the sentencing remarks made by His Honour Judge Christopher Hehir when explaining why he was handing down the prison terms of four and five years to the defendants.
The Court findings
Depending on one’s point of view, one might conclude that the Judge’s disinclination to allow the defendants to pontificate about their climate concerns during the trial, and to explain their motivation for acting as they did, was either a denial or justice, or a necessary measure to ensure that the trial remained focussed on the legal issues and did not descend to anarchy and chaos. Readers probably won’t be surprised to learn that I incline to the latter view, not least given that Roger Hallam is on record as saying that disruption is war, and when asked who the war is against, he replied “It’s a war against those people who are engaging in mass murder.” When asked for clarification as to who those people are, he said they were the global elites, and when pressed further, he refined his answer thus: “Well, practically speaking, in this country it means the UK government and the forces behind the UK government…”.
Given his history, those words, and his very clear statements during that BBC interview with Nick Robinson to the effect that Just Stop Oil protestors can expect to be arrested for their disruptive actions, my personal conclusion is that Mr Hallam and his co-defendants were likely to use the trial as yet another opportunity to cause disruption. Indeed, the Judge found that with the exception of one defendant only, they all embarked on a calculated campaign to disrupt the proceedings as far as they possibly could.
Other than with regard to criticisms surrounding the curtailing of the defendants’ right to pontificate at great (and I mean great) length as to their take on the “climate crisis” (sic) I am unaware of any suggestion that the trial was in any way unfair. All of the defendants understood in advance what was the charge against them. All were entitled to be legally represented. The facts were determined, not by the Judge, but by a jury of the defendants’ peers. It was the jury, not the Judge, who found them guilty of the offence with which they were charged. Furthermore, they have the right to appeal against errors in law which they may believe were made during their trial, and also to appeal against their sentences should they be unjust and in breach of sentencing guidelines. The offence of which they were convicted was passed by a democratically elected Parliament. It turns out that this isn’t Russia, Iran, China, or any of the other countries to which Mr Forst might more usefully direct his attention.
Having said that, I am a passionate believer in freedom of speech and the right to protest. I do, however, believe that in a civilised society we all owe a duty to each other, and it is reasonable that on’e right to protest is qualified so as not to impinge seriously on the lives of one’s fellow citizens. And, when one reads the Judge’s sentencing remarks, it turns out that the defendants did rather more than simply “come together with others to discuss how to prompt government action through entirely peaceful means to address the serious threats posed by the climate crisis” (per Mr Forst). They also did rather more than just give us ear ache or prove to be a bit annoying (per Messrs Packham and Vince).
The Judge tells us that the defendants’ plan was a sophisticated one to disrupt traffic on the M25. The location was chosen with care because if people climbed gantries at various locations on the M25 it could cause gridlock, not just on the M25, but on motorways and A roads linking to it, including the M40, M1, A1(M), M11, M20, M26, M23, M3 and M4, with four airports lying close by. They didn’t achieve the wholescale gridlock and disruption they sought to cause, but what they did achieve was bad enough. Over four days, roads were badly affected for a total of 121 hours and 45 minutes. Over 700,000 vehicles are thought to have been affected. Economic costs were assessed at over £3/4M and police costs at £1M. Members of the public were affected in a myriad of ways. People missed flights and funerals. Students missed mock exams. Students with special needs were adversely affected, and one missed his daily medication. A sufferer of aggressive cancer missed an appointment at a cancer clinic, and had to wait two months for another appointment. People were late to work. An HGV driver was unable to deliver £5,000 worth of food to a hospital. All of the defendants were found to have been intimately involved in the planning associated with the conspiracy.
When it came to the sentencing decision, the Judge could do little other than note that all of the defendants had “form”, and recent sentencing or cases against them mattered not to them – they very deliberately participated while knowing that (in some cases at least) they were breaching the terms of existing sentences or bail conditions. Mr Hallam has quite a history. He was convicted as a young man of offences related to direct action protest in 1987 and 1988. Since 2017 he has amassed another 11 convictions. Mr Shaw has one previous public order conviction. The Judge found that he was “up to his neck” in the conspiracy and was unimpressed by his disruptive behaviour during the trial. Ms DeAbreu has three previous convictions for offences of obstruction during direct action protests. Ms Lancaster has six previous convictions for offences committed in the course of direct action protest, and actually committed the offence in this case during the period of a suspended sentence given to her in connection with another case. Ms Gethin, although aged just 22, already has three previous convictions for offences committed during direct protest, and her conviction in case puts her in breach of a conditional discharge given to her in an earlier case.
Although the sentences handed down were for four years and five years (the latter in the case of Mr Hallam) as is normal the Judge made it clear that they will serve just half of the term in prison. And if I understand these things correctly any time already spent on remand will be deducted from the time they now spend in prison going forward.
Conclusion
The sentences are intended to punish, to protect the public from these people, and to deter others. Given that under the UK system, so long as they behave themselves in prison they will serve only half of the headline figures, in all of the circumstances, including the aggravating factors of breaching existing suspended sentences or the terms of a conditional discharge, plus disruptive behaviour during the trial, I don’t believe the sentences are excessive.
I do wonder if Messrs Packham, Vince and Forst would be quite so concerned if the defendants had been protesting against, say, the environmental devastation being caused by wind farms, or the economic damage being unleashed on the country by the mad net zero agenda. I hasten to add that I do not condone such behaviour whatever the cause. However, it does strike me that it’s the subject-matter behind the protests that has stirred up the celebrities and the United Nations, rather than the actual facts in the case.
Climate Scepticism 
I wonder if the irrepressible Mr Hallam will be true to his word and continue to live by his ‘disruption is war’ ethos whilst in prison. Or will he suddenly become the model prisoner to ensure his early release? Prison time will tell.
LikeLike
I was going to say I am against locking them up – there are enough actual criminals in need of locking up already, and several seem to be being released to inflict more misery on the public… when I got to the part where you listed the form of the accused. I suppose there comes a point where you have to escalate.
ASTERISK: you mention the effect the “cause” might have on deciding people’s reaction to the sentence. What if we have a farmers’ protest, including a go-slow on motorways? Are we willing to condone the jailing of the ringleaders of such protests too?
[My answer: not if they don’t have form. It’s a sort of pathetic two-way bet.]
DOUBLE ASTERISK: Is there not something useful we could have them do, like collecting roadside litter in (orange, of course) hi-viz?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jit:
”Is there not something useful we could have them do …”
Yes, of course there is. Put them on a treadmill connected to a generator for 8-hour shifts so that for 4/5 years they can be usefully productive and tangibly save some fossil-fuelled generation.
Over an 8-hour work shift, an average, healthy, well-fed and motivated manual labourer may sustain an output of around 75 watts of power.
A win-win for all concerned – them especially – from the realisation at how energetically pathetic they are vs a litre of oil.
The 5 of them might manage to produce a total of 3kWh from a day’s labour; a litre of oil contains ~10.35kWh
LikeLiked by 1 person
John,
At para 59 of the sentencing remarks, it seems clear that suggestions had been made on Mr Hallam’s behalf that he has “now consciously desisted from direct action protest” and so presents no risk of further offending. The Judge was having none of it, not least because of his conduct during the trial itself. It will be interesting to see now whether that claim was a clutching-at-straws attempt to avoid prison, but a hollow one evidenced by disruptive behaviour once inside prison, or whether he behaves himself once there, so as to get out again as quickly as possible.
Jit,
Consistency is vital, both for us sceptics, and for the justice system in general. I think it’s fair to say that JSO protestors waging “disruptive war” have been treated with kid gloves until fairly recently. In this case, they were sent to prison because of a number of compounding factors – previous convictions, committing this offence while on bail or “serving” suspended sentences or following a conditional discharge, disruptive behaviour during the trial, breach of at least one injunction, and the harm risked by the disruption caused. The Judge referred to the possibility of road accidents and to accidents involving those members of the emergency services tasked with bringing protestors down from the gantries. To which I would add the very real risk that people might have died due to failure of one or more ambulances to reach them then take them promptly to hospital. That, combined with the deterrence aspect of the sentences persuades me that the sentences aren’t OTT and aren’t inappropriate. If others engaged in disruptive protests for different reasons, but with that same catalogue of factors, then I would suggest that they should be treated in exactly the same way, whoever they are, and regardless of whether I agree with their motivation.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I fully agree with Mark. And with Julian Jessop (no relation, that I know of) on X yesterday evening. Here’s the start of the thread and the most amusing of his eight points (as experienced by your truly)
How free is our press and social media? How much do sceptics get airtime on the BBC, for example? But as for ‘awareness about climate change’ as defined by the Hallams of this world, I think we do ok. 😉
LikeLike
A surprising article in the Guardian, but credit to its author and to the Guardian editor for bringing some balance with regard to its earlier comment pieces:
“Yes, five years in jail is too harsh, but the Just Stop Oil Five shouldn’t have done it
The urgent needs of the road users they held up were ignored during this climate crusade”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jul/21/yes-five-years-in-jail-is-too-harsh-but-the-just-stop-oil-five-shouldnt-have-done-it
…There are certainly questions about whether the sentences for their offences are proportionate or appropriate in the context of the wider criminal justice system. But to suggest that freedom of conscience creates an unlimited right to cause other citizens harm is to fail to engage with the nature of their offence. And, more broadly, to misunderstand what it means to live in a democracy where we enjoy a right to noisy protest, but are also bound by obligations to each other that are framed by the rule of law that applies to us all equally….
…Moreover, the judge said that if their plans as conceived had succeeded, the resulting disruption would have been “catastrophic”: mass road disruption across southern England with “major implications for food supplies and the maintenance of law and order, among other things”, including people’s access to life-saving emergency care….
…Perhaps overly punitive, but it is hard to disagree that the right to protest is qualified. In this case, the protesters were by design setting out to cause their fellow citizens the maximum disruption possible. The police say Just Stop Oil has refused to work constructively with them in the context of offers to facilitate lawful protest. Treating them with excessive lenience would send a message that anyone who feels strongly about an issue – from Scottish independence to banning abortion – should feel free to shut down the motorway network to make their point. Moreover, Hallam has himself in the past implied getting jailed is an objective: “If you’re not in prison, you’re not in resistance.”…
…Next is the question of whether the sentences were too harsh, setting aside motivations. As well as the impact and intended impact, the judge relied heavily on the need for deterrence; he described them all as having crossed the line from “concerned campaigner to fanatic”; they had “appointed [themselves] as the sole arbiters about what should be done about climate change, bound neither by democracy nor the rule of law”. He pointed to their behaviour at the trial, calculated to disrupt the proceedings as much as possible, as evidence of their reoffending risk….
…Prison is an expensive, finite resource that should be reserved for criminals who pose a serious risk to the community that cannot be otherwise mitigated; our prisons are overfull to the point they cannot fulfil their rehabilitation role and so are putting society at greater risk. Why not deprive non-violent offenders of their liberty through restrictive curfews monitored through electronic tagging instead?
But we should be clear that asking this question is quite distinct from the overwrought handwringing which posits that stopping people from self-indulgently crippling important national infrastructure is somehow an authoritarian abuse of democracy.
Very well said.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Am I reading too much into this change of heart from the Grauniad if I was to suggest that the new government would love to see JSO, XR and the like crushed? If I was them it’s where I would go. Ed with his ‘strong mandate’ doing his NZ thing but with no radical criticism from his left.
LikeLike
Mark, is it really the case that someone can be handed down a sentence commensurate with what they intended to do, rather than that which they actually did – which, from what I understand, was largely the result of the police deciding to close down the motorway in order to remove the protestors? Seems odd to me. Or would their sentences have been even harsher had they achieved their stated objectives?
Anyway, following on from Richard’s comment above, I think Milibanned should be charged, prosecuted and jailed because obviously he has crossed the line from concerned politician to fanatic and if he succeeds in his plans, the results for this country will be truly catastrophic and cause immense harm and disruption. He has appointed himself as the sole arbiter of what should be done to ‘tackle the climate crisis’ and is bound neither by a functioning democracy or the rule of law (which he can change at whim, e.g. planning laws). Obviously, as such, he doesn’t want rival fanatics like Hallam and others raining on his parade.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hallam used to quite like prison. Here are some statements he made before and after a six-week spell in Wormwood Scrubs in late 2019 (during which he wrote his spiel about girlfriends and mothers being gang-raped on kitchen tables).
1 In a video he made before being sent to the Scrubs, Hallam said that going to prison was ‘no big deal’ then criticized activists for using their jobs and families as excuses for not doing things that could lead to imprisonment.
(He then moved on to the ‘mass economic disruption’ that he said was the only way to prevent the end of the world.)
2 After Hallam was released in Oct 2019, he said that being in Wormwood Scrubs was close to being in paradise…
*
Sorry. Something else to do.
Perhaps more about Hallam later. Here are some links:
Emergency Means Prison:
Three naps a day:
https://web.archive.org/web/20191018234427/https://www.documentjournal.com/2019/10/extinction-rebellion-roger-hallam-speaks-to-act-up-peter-staley-about-disrupting-the-world-in-order-to-save-it/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Vinny,
I’m sure you are right; Hallam will be as happy as a pig in muck. I will not be losing any sleep over it and I suggest nor should Packham.
LikeLike
A long read from Ben Pile, but worth it, IMO:
https://netzeroscandal.substack.com/p/climate-justice-vs-criminal-justice
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reassuring to see that Ben shares my cynical views on XR/JSO:
LikeLiked by 2 people
How predictable:
“Just Stop Oil sentences condemned by celebrities”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz9xr4q3rk6o
More than 1,200 artists, athletes and academics have condemned the “injustice” of sentences handed to five Just Stop Oil activists for non-violent protests.
In a letter to the Attorney General, they called for an urgent meeting to discuss “the jailing of truth tellers and their silencing in court”….
...High-profile people including former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, musicians Chris Martin and Annie Lennox, and author Philip Pullman signed the missive.
UN human rights commissioner Volker Turk described the sentences as “deeply troubling”.
The signatories argue that the non-violent protesters were “fulfilling a necessary service” by “alerting the nation to the grave risk we all face”.…
Because without their protest, nobody would have heard of climate change, presumably. After all, the BBC barely mention it…
The article concludes with this:
…A snap poll by the Social Change Lab, an organisation that describes itself as conducting and disseminating social movement research, found 61% of respondents believed the Whole Truth Five’s sentences were too harsh. It said 27% of those who took part felt the sentences were about right and 12% said they were too lenient.
It’s a pity the BBC didn’t think to deploy its Verify team. Here’s the link to the piece at the Social Change Lab website:
https://www.socialchangelab.org/post/british-public-think-record-sentences-for-just-stop-oil-activists-are-too-harsh-survey-reveals
...To understand public opinion on these sentences, we conducted an online survey with 945 adults in the UK (nationally representative for age, sex, and political affiliation) via Prolific, asking about people’s opinion of the sentencing.
A majority of respondents (61%) considered the sentences too harsh. 27% of respondents felt the sentences were ‘In proportion to the offence’, while only 12% felt the sentences were too lenient...
That’s what the BBC reported, so what’s my problem? Firstly, the lack of transparency regarding the methodology behind the survey, the precise question asked, its framing etc. Secondly, this:
…To provide an overview of people’s general opinions, we collapsed the factors “Far too harsh”, “Harsh”, and “Slightly harsh” into one category labeled “Too harsh” in the main plot. Similarly, “Far too lenient”, “Lenient”, and “Slightly lenient” were collapsed into one category labeled “Too lenient”. “In proportion to the offence” was renamed “Proportionate” for brevity.
Maybe the BBC journalist didn’t read to the end, and so didn’t notice this sleight of hand? The breakdown is “slightly harsh” = 22%; “harsh” = 17%; and far too harsh = 22%. Add lenient, slightly lenient and proportionate to slightly harsh, and you have 57% who didn’t think it was harsh or too harsh, which is very different.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Excellent letter in the Guardian. Not sure what Mr Monbiot will make of it:
“A fruitful protest in Wales that did not cause misery for others
Richard Bonfield recalls how he organised a peaceful gathering that led to an inquiry and, ultimately, victory for local people”
Re George Monbiot’s article about peaceful protests following the jailing of four Just Stop Oil activists (A record sentence for a Zoom call, arrests for those holding signs outside. This is a blight on British democracy, 19 July), I agree with peaceful protests that can make a difference in changing people’s minds and hearts, but not with actions that cause misery to ordinary people, as was the case with the M25 protest.
In May 2011, I was the organiser of the biggest peaceful protest outside the Senedd Cymru against proposals for swathes of windfarms and pylons to cover huge areas of mid-Wales. Initially, each village set up it own protest group, but quickly everyone realised that we needed one group to fight these imposed developments – result, all 25 groups came together.
Nearly 2,000 people of all ages and political persuasions convened for a one-hour sharp protest. All the coaches were parked up neatly on the A470 just outside Cardiff Bay, and not one person in Cardiff was affected by our protest. The demonstration was a great success, with massive TV and press coverage.
Cardiff’s chief constable thanked everyone after the event for their conduct, and not a scrap of litter was found. The result was that Powys county council had to determine the windfarm applications at Welshpool livestock market, as 2,000 people wished to hear the debate, which was relayed by speakers. All applications were refused and this led to one of Wales’s biggest public inquiries.
The alliance fought the inquiry over 15 months, achieving a massive victory with all refused bar one. But the proposed pylon route to get the power from the windfarm to the grid was refused.
Everyone should be able to express their views peacefully, without causing distress and misery to fellow citizens.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark – I see that BBC article/post which quotes xx% from the “snap poll by the Social Change Lab” can’t be bothered to give a link to it. Wonder if Bethan Bell & her editors thought “don’t give the link it will only confuse readers & this article wants to focus on what “celebrities” think”.
Anyway, thanks for digging out the link (as usual) which is short & 2nd bar chart shows what “945 adults in the UK (nationally representative for age, sex, and political affiliation)” think.
From that poll page, we get this –
“Markus Ostarek, Director of Research at Social Change Lab, who conducted the survey, said: “We were really struck by the contradiction between the opinions of some in the media that people engaging in disruptive protests should be harshly punished, and what the public have told us.
“This poll indicates a striking consensus among the British public that the sentences delivered to the Just Stop Oil campaigners do not align with the perceived gravity of their actions. This raises important questions about the proportionality of sentencing in cases of peaceful protest.”
Non biased polling at work & feed straight into a BBC article.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Nine Just Stop Oil protesters were arrested outside Heathrow Airport as part of a Europe-wide campaign threatening summer travel chaos.”
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/nine-just-stop-oil-activists-arrested-heathrow-europe-wide-campaign/
The protesters were arrested at 9am at two locations outside the UK’s busiest airport as climate activists across Europe tried to disrupt air traffic.
The Metropolitan Police said it had “prevented significant disruption to the airport and travelling public”.
Just Stop Oil activists have vowed to use all means “necessary” to disrupt flights as part of this latest campaign….
...The Met Police said in a statement: “Nine Just Stop Oil activists have been arrested this morning for conspiring to disrupt Heathrow Airport.
“Thanks to the work of officers involved, those arrested have been taken into custody and the Met has prevented significant disruption to the airport and travelling public.“
A Heathrow spokesman said: “Thanks to swift action from the police and airport colleagues, there is no disruption to passenger journeys. Heathrow continues to operate as normal today.’We are in full agreement that the aviation industry needs to decarbonise, but unlawful and irresponsible protest activity will not be tolerated.”…
…Adam Beard, who was also arrested added: “We need immediate and decisive action to prevent the worst effects of the climate crisis becoming reality, with all the death and suffering that will bring. Our government must work with other nations to enact a treaty to end the extraction and burning of oil, gas and coal by 2030.”
And if (as seems likely) other countries decline to enact such a treaty? Utterly delusional. That reference from the police to a conspiracy to disrupt might suggest more prison sentences are on the horizon.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“JSO pair told to expect jail over soup on painting”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c51y99yrj49o
Two Just Stop Oil (JSO) activists who threw soup over Vincent van Gogh’s Sunflowers have been found guilty of criminal damage.
Phoebe Plummer and Anna Holland, both 22, launched the contents of two tins of tomato soup on to the painting at the National Gallery in central London, later gluing their hands to the wall beneath it.
The gallery previously said the gold-coloured frame of the glass-covered painting was damaged in the October 2022 attack.
At Southwark Crown Court, Judge Christopher Hehir told the pair to be “prepared in practical and emotional terms to go to prison” when they are sentenced on 27 September.
Judge Hehir said they “came within the width of a pane of glass of destroying one of the most valuable artworks in the world”.
He set bail conditions for Plummer, of Clapham in south-west London, and Holland, of Newcastle, which stipulate they must not carry glue, paint or any adhesive substance in a public place, and must not visit any galleries or museums.
Last week, the same judge sentenced five JSO activists to jail terms of between four and five years....
LikeLiked by 1 person
What I don’t understand – and I may have mentioned this before – is why they did not just clear the room and leave them there until they screamed for help.
LikeLiked by 3 people
What worries me is that a museum employee stated that the tomato soup acted like “paint stripper” on the 17th century frame. Even after they wiped it off, the residue was peeling the paint off before her eyes. Eek! If Heinz tomato soup does this to old paint, just imagine wat it does to your gut! No more tomato soup for me. I imagine porridge will be a lot more benign, so our JSO activists should be just fine once they are tucked up nicely in their cells.
LikeLike
Gratifying to see a variety of views being expressed in the letters page of the Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jul/26/was-the-jailing-of-just-stop-oil-protesters-fair
Long live free speech and diversity of opinion.
LikeLike
“Why Just Stop Oil’s long jail sentences could embolden some activists”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3g9yrdkwrwo
The BBC@s attempt to lobby by the back door on their behalf? I think this is highly questionable behaviour on the BBC’s part, to say the least:
Speaking to the BBC exclusively in a recorded message from his prison cell this week, Hallam stood by his actions.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I agree with this letter in the Guardian (but not the one that follows it – still, diversity of opinions is to be welcomed, so thank you Guardian for that at least):
Thank you, Sonia Sodha, for bursting the bubble (“Yes, five years in jail is too harsh, but the Just Stop Oil Five shouldn’t have done it”, Comment). Party A seeks something that Party B refuses to grant. Party A therefore – usually indiscriminately – targets Party C, who must be entirely innocent for this to work, and threatens to harm them unless given what they want.
It’s called hostage taking. In their latest indulgence of the practice, Just Stop Oil once again comes across as implacable yet patronising absolutists: “Yes, we’re hurting you, but we know that it’s for the best.” Their pretence of intellectual coherence is betrayed by the essential crudeness of their message: “Give us what we want, or the bunny gets it.” I cannot believe that their antics attract more people than they alienate.
https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/article/2024/jul/28/bursting-the-bubble-of-just-stop-oil
LikeLike
Mark,
Yes, I too found the BBC piece highly questionable, particularly the bit where it said that the jurors were given no option but to find them guilty because the judge had denied them [the accused] the right to disrupt the proceedings by preaching endlessly on the supposed crisis. The BBC’s choice of ‘more on this story’ articles says everything you need to know about where the BBC is coming from. If the courts disallow preaching to justify the actions, we the BBC will step forward and do Hallam’s job for him.
LikeLiked by 2 people
From that BBC article we also get this –
“So have Just Stop Oil and groups like it run out of legal road?
Not quite. Judges at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg have long held the view that peaceful protesters should not be jailed. The court could rule that the law in England and Wales is incompatible with basic rights to protest and free speech.
At that point not only would Sir Keir Starmer be in a very sticky position, but the protesters themselves may be emboldened to reach for the super glue once more.”
Watch this space for further BBC “European Court of Human Rights” comments/opinions.
LikeLike
Does that mean the BBC is coming out for or against the UK’s continued membership of the European Convention on Human Rights? Difficult to tell.
LikeLike
My reading between the lines – BBC is coming out for the UK’s continued membership of the European Convention on Human Rights & would be happy to report “that peaceful protesters should not be jailed. The court could rule that the law in England and Wales is incompatible with basic rights to protest and free speech.”
When it comes to “Climate Chaos” the BEEB is only on one side.
LikeLike
“Just Stop Oil activists jailed after M25 blocked”
Another batch sent to the slammer, the foot soldiers this time rather than the generals.
Nobody is curtailing the fundamental right to peacefully protest. I wouldn’t want her as my lawyer if this is the level of logic she is capable of.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Maybe the prison sentences awarded to the M25 disrupters aren’t deterring other protestors as much as was hoped….
“Arrests made at power station ‘climate camp'”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y83z41xelo
A total of 22 people have been arrested in connection with a planned “climate camp” near a power station in North Yorkshire, police have said.
The arrests were for public order offences, including conspiracy to interfere with key national infrastructure at Drax Power Station in Selby between 8 and 13 August.
Several items which would be associated with large scale protest were also seized, according to North Yorkshire Police.
Supt Ed Haywood-Noble said: “At a time when police resources are stretched nationally, it was essential we acted both swiftly and robustly to reduce the risk of unlawful activity and disruption over the coming days.”
I don’t know enough about it, based on that BBC report, but although I am in profound disagreement with the climate protestors, I do support their right to protest so long as it is peaceful and doesn’t break the law – e.g. criminal damage, intimidation etc. So I’m slightly concerned that on the face of it, based only on the quote as reported, the police appear to have arrested people, not because they have broken the law, but “to reduce the risk of unlawful activity and disruption over the coming days.” I may be reading the statement too literally, and it may be that criminal offences have been committed, but if not, then these are potentially worrying times for all who wish to protest against government policies.
By the way, I also think this is a bit rich from Drax, given how much North American wood it burns:
…“Drax has been at the forefront of efforts to help the UK to decarbonise at a faster rate than any other country, and is the country’s biggest renewable power generator by output, keeping the lights on for four million homes and businesses across the UK.”
LikeLike
In the interests of balance, I think is an interesting article by George Monbiot:
“‘Two-tier justice’ in Britain is real – but it’s not what the right says it is”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/aug/14/peaceful-protest-punished-britain-racist-rioting-real-two-tier-justice
I think he makes some interesting points that I confess hadn’t occurred to me. For instance, this:
...The inequality looks even starker when you compare the Just Stop Oil protests with the fuel protests in 2000. The first day of protest that year was organised by the Conservative party, which saw fuel taxes as an opportunity to attack the Labour government. Two months later, in September, the campaign erupted into a nationwide shutdown by a coalition of lorry drivers and farmers. They blockaded oil refineries and fuel depots across the country. Nearly three-quarters of filling stations ran dry, supermarkets began rationing food, ambulance services were severely disrupted, schools shut, bus and train services were suspended, operations were cancelled and the NHS was put on red alert.
Simultaneously, the protesters blockaded motorways with convoys of slow-moving trucks. Transport across much of Britain ground to a halt. The cost to businesses was estimated at £1bn, which in those days was real money. No one even bothered to document the missed hospital appointments, school days, work days, flights and funerals (of which the judge Christopher Hehir made so much in sentencing the Just Stop Oil protesters), as millions of people had to cancel their plans.
The result? As far as I can discover, not a single organiser or activist was prosecuted.…
That seems like a very valid point.
I also have no disagreement with him when he protests that rioters are receiving shorter prison sentences than the JSO protestors. Of course rioters should go to prison, but then there can be complicating factors. I think all the JSO protestors sent to prison by Judge Hehir had previous convictions, and some were even in breach of the terms of previous Court sentences by doing what they did. If rioters had previous form, then they should, all other things being equal, receive longer sentences than those who didn’t. And so on. Having said that, I am a little uneasy at what appears (caveat – do we know the full facts?) to be the imprisoning of people for what they said on social media as opposed to physical actions, and I am also concerned at the apparent rush to criminalise children. Anyone urging violence via social media should, in my opinion, be subject to criminal proceedings, but I am concerned at where the line may end up being drawn. It’s one thing to criminalise online incitement to criminal behaviour, it’s another to criminalise misinformation, since what is misinformation can often be difficult to establish. I think the BBC, the Guardian and the government spew out lots of misinformation relating to climate change and the cost of energy; they probably think the same about me. Which brings us back to this:
https://cliscep.com/2024/05/31/factions/
It’s a tricky business.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I had a similar experience today on X Mark, with black barrister Allison Bailey putting the ‘other side’ from various angry tweeters about one case:
I know Allison through the UK fight against gender ideology. It’s a virtue of my strange journey on X that I follow a lot of gender critical women and they sure aren’t all Tories or indeed climate sceptics! (They’re probably not massive Monbiot fans either though, by now.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Note related comments on Jit’s solar farms thread this morning.
Danny Finkelstein made the link to the JSO sentences in his oped for the Times two days ago
I also suspect Starmer won’t make things easier for JSO in this regard, as I said a while back.
LikeLike
Now this is complicated, from an impressive barrister on X (who, strangely enough, follows me), about how the new government has made it easier for one JSO sympathiser and saved them from possibly going to prison. I leave it to Cliscep’s resident legal eagles to explain!
The Guardian article being Government drops appeal over climate activist who held sign outside UK from two days ago.
LikeLike
Richard, it’s complicated. If I remember correctly, on the single occasion when I served as a juror, I swore an oath along the lines of honestly determining the facts. I don’t remember swearing to decide the case according to my conscience. So the signs are controversial, to say the least.
Having said that, I think the idea of sending someone to prison for holding such a sign outside Court is way over the top. Bear in mind that a Court had already decided there was nothing to see here, the decision of the last government to appeal that decision just looks vindictive and a waste of taxpayers’ money and Court time. I am not surprised that the new government has dropped the appeal, nor does that decision disappoint me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The juror’s oath:
I swear by Almighty God [or I do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm] that I will faithfully try the defendant and give a true verdict according to the evidence.
Nothing about a juror’s conscience in that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yep, there’s the tendentious “according to your conscience” bit and now the annoying whine about our “barely functioning democracy where people are unequal under the law”. Presumably because no government has got to Net Zero according to the timetable demanded by the highly democratic JSO disruptors.
I was on Barbara’s profile because of this
Some people, like JSO and me, have had it easy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
O/T – not a “conspiracy theory” but I wonder if the NZ plans & expected/happening public & online pushback could be another reason GOV is keen to give out a strong message about dissent.
ps – unless I missed something, there has been no info on the Southport stabbing from the police on MSM. In fact the horrific event seems to have slipped down the “news”.
If more info on the attacker had been provided sooner, it may well have stopped some of the riots by bigoted yobs.
LikeLike
“Why jail won’t stop Just Stop Oil”
https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/09/27/why-jail-wont-stop-just-stop-oil/
Just Stop Oil activists threw soup on Vincent van Gogh’s Sunflowers this afternoon – mere hours after two of their fellow eco-irritants were jailed for throwing precisely the same substance at precisely the same painting back in 2022. Phoebe Plummer has been sent down for two years, Anna Holland for 20 months. Clearly, prison is doing nothing to deter JSO’s crazed vandalism. Why? Because these deep-green activists are not merely worried about climate change – they are obsessed and deranged by their fear of climate change. They believe, as JSO luminary Roger Hallam does, that a warming planet spells the end of all civilization – a descent into a dystopia of drought, hellfire and anarchy. In short, they are gripped by an apocalyptic fantasy. A spell in jail feels like a luxury compared with the bleak future they imagine. We need to push back against this fact-free alarmism, or else more youngsters will be lost to this doomsday cult.
LikeLiked by 1 person
As so often with Mr Monbiot, I think his piece here is something of a curate’s egg:
“As the waters rise, a two-year sentence for throwing soup. That’s the farcical reality of British justice
Why do the mass killers of the fossil fuel industry walk free while the heroes trying to stop them are imprisoned?”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/oct/01/prison-uk-justice-system-fossil-fuel-industry
LikeLike
“Climate groups to back M25 protesters’ jail appeal”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgmnpv71xmo
…Friends of the Earth (FoE) said it and Greenpeace UK have been allowed to intervene in support of the five when they challenge their jail terms in court next month.
FoE said it would argue the sentences breach human rights legislation….
...Katie de Kauwe, senior lawyer at FoE said the sentences showed “the chilling effect of the previous government’s anti-protest laws”....
...”Peaceful protesters shouldn’t be locked up, period.”
Jack Robirosa, legal counsel for Greenpeace UK, said the last government’s “draconian laws” led to a situation where “conscientious people are getting five years in prison for discussing a planned peaceful protest”.
He added: “This is not the sort of thing most people associate with an established democracy with respect for civil rights and a healthy culture of protest and free speech.“
The appeal bids are due to be heard at the end of January.
I confess I am still conflicted by this. On the one hand, these do not seem to me to be the simple peaceful protestors they are claimed to be. Many were repeat offenders, repeating their offences while flouting earlier Court Orders and/or awaiting sentencing for previous misdemeanours. The whole point of the nature of their protests was to cause maximum disruption and impose misery on their fellow citizens, in order to make their point and to ensure it was reported on. I don’t believe such behaviour is legitimate. On the other hand I was surprised by the length of their jail sentences and do remain uncomfortable with them.
What do others think? It’s also worth considering what we would think if similar sentences were handed down to, say, protesting farmers, causing similar chaos on the roads. It’s vital that people are treated alike for similar behaviour and that justice is blind.
LikeLike
I have some sympathy for Anna Holland. I feel that her sentence was OTT.
“‘You won’t find the real criminals here’: a Just Stop Oil activist in jail at Christmas
Protester Anna Holland says their shock at being behind bars was quickly followed by a stronger feeling of power”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/dec/20/just-stop-oil-activist-jail-christmas
When I read this sort of thing, I think she needs enlightenment rather than punishment:
...The absolute failure of most of the mainstream media to do its job and report the news objectively and in proper detail has also hit me hard. It’s no wonder that people aren’t out on the streets when they aren’t being told all the facts. The sheer corruption of Cop29 glossed over, Palestine forgotten, Malibu wildfires ignored. It isn’t fair to us and it’s so shameful that the main news channels on TV value their income over the truth.
This whole experience has taught me that our laws and our legal systems are no more based on morality than our climate policies are on science and the good of humanity. You won’t find the real criminals behind these walls, you will find them in the seats of parliament, running our country.
I don’t know where she’s been living. I don’t watch BBC TV any more as I no longer have a TV licence, but I do listen to BBC Radio 4 quite a lot. It’s usually only a matter of minutes, sometimes even seconds, before the words “climate change” are being shoehorned in to whatever I’m listening to, however irrelevant it is to the subject under discussion. Palestine has also been close to a BBC obsession. It’s an important subject, of course, but I would say the BBC has focussed on it a disproportionate level, and is certainly a long way from forgetting it. It’s interesting that Anna is in the Greta mould – climate change and Palestine are now their pet hobby horses, hand in hand.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“GP jailed for role in Just Stop Oil protest”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cg525d9jlvlo
A GP has been jailed for his involvement in a climate protest.
In August 2022 Dr Patrick Hart, 38, caused thousands of pounds worth of damage to 16 fuel pumps at Thurrock Motorway Services, in Grays, Essex, during a Just Stop Oil demonstration.
The Bristol-based GP hit the pumps with a hammer, sprayed them with orange paint and “obstructed or otherwise interfered with the refuelling of vehicles“.
He was sentenced to 12 months in prison at Chelmsford Crown Court on Tuesday after being found guilty of causing criminal damage.
The damage was caused after five climate activists, including Hart, breached a High Court injunction by blocking access to the M25 petrol station on 24 August by sitting on the road.
Essex County Council said the cost of repairing the pumps was £9,376.27.
The forecourt was not fully operational until 18:00 BST the next day and the temporary closure led to lost profits of £1,146.06, the court heard.
Hart, an NHS GP who has taken part in various climate protests, previously said he was prepared to risk his career for the cause if needed.
“If that’s what it takes to do the right thing,” he told the BBC.
Whatever one things about XR protestors and the rights and wrongs of their protests, criminal damage will generally result in a jail sentence, especially if the damage runs to thousands of pounds. It was wanton vandalism, and I expect better of GPs. I trust he was also ordered to pay compensation to cover the cost of the damage caused. I find it deeply disturbing that someone as presumably well-educated and intelligent as a GP can express views such as those expressed by Dr Hart.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Man arrested after climate activists cut UK insurance firms’ fibre optic cables
Protest group says it targeted insurers ‘due to their critical role underpinning the fossil fuel economy’”
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/jan/24/man-arrested-after-climate-activists-cut-uk-insurance-firms-fibre-optic-cables
A man has been arrested after environmental activists claimed responsibility for sabotage attacks on fibre optic cables outside major insurance companies.
The 29-year-old was arrested by City of London police after activists said they had cut the cables to insurance company offices in London, Leeds, Birmingham and Sheffield on Monday.
In a press release, the group, which calls itself Shut the System, said it had targeted insurers “due to their critical role underpinning the fossil fuel economy through underwriting contracts and investments”.
It circulated a photo it said showed an activist dressed as an electrical engineer reaching into a maintenance hole to cut cables next to 52 Lime Street, in the City of London financial district, where the insurance firms W/R/B Underwriting and Chaucer have offices.
Fibre optics were also targeted, according to the press release, at the insurance market at Lloyd’s of London, the Walkie Talkie building at 20 Fenchurch Street, which is the London base of seven big insurers, as well as the offices of Talbot AIG at 60 Threadneedle Street, Chubb at 100 Leadenhall Street, and AIG on Fenchurch Street. The offices of AIG in Birmingham, Markel in Sheffield and Axa in Leeds were also targeted, Shut the System said.
“If these powerful companies don’t make public statements that they will stop driving fossil fuel expansion and destroying life on Earth, then we have no choice but to stop them ourselves,” the group’s statement said. “We will not give up until insurance companies take responsible action.”…
It’s really all getting beyond a joke, isn’t it? Declaring a mad cause to justify wilful criminal damage against people you’ve decided you hate. As well as criminal damage, it looks like blackmail to me.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Mark – “Shut the System” are a new group to me, but found this from 10 June 2024 –
Barclays banks across UK targeted by pro-Palestine protesters – BBC News
Seems it was not just “protests by a pro-Palestine group“, Partial quote –
“Shut the System, a recently launched underground climate movement, partnered with Palestine Action’s underground division to launch the attacks, both activist groups confirmed.
According to the groups, targeted actions will continue until Barclays stops investing in certain companies.”
As you say, looks like ongoing blackmail along with actual criminal/economic damage.
Can’t believe the authorities have no power against “underground” activists, or where it will it end.
Thinking, why worry about Russian threat to our undersea comms/interconnectors, when domestic activists may have no qualms about disrupting/crippling the UK onshore links.
LikeLiked by 1 person
dfhunter, thanks for the additional information.
Of course, a recent perplexing development is the way that climate activists seem increasingly to coalesce with pro-Palestinian activists. See John Ridgway’s excellent article:
https://cliscep.com/2023/11/13/girls-just-wanna-have-fun/
There’s increasingly more to all this than a simple fundamental belief that we are facing a climate crisis (sic).
LikeLiked by 2 people
Mark – thanks for the link back to John’s sombre post & the comments it invoked.
Well worth a reread.
LikeLike
“JSO co-founder’s sentence reduced by appeal court”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm2jvmrvydro
Reading the full report, I think the Court of Appeal probably got it about right:
Six climate change activists, including the co-founder of Just Stop Oil (JSO), have had their sentences reduced after organising what they hoped would be a massive blockade of the M25, the Court of Appeal has ruled.
Roger Hallam and 15 other protesters were jailed last year for their roles in four demonstrations held by JSO, including climbing on gantries over the M25 and throwing soup over Vincent van Gogh’s Sunflowers painting.
They challenged their sentences at the Court of Appeal, with their lawyers claiming they were “manifestly excessive”.
The judges dismissed appeals by two women who threw the soup in the National Gallery in London in October 2022.
In their judgment, the Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr, Mr Justice Lavender and Mr Justice Griffiths ruled that six of the 16 should have their sentences reduced while dismissing the other appeals.…
LikeLike