Articles Menu
Multi-Year Prison Terms in UK for Blocking Traffic
28/08/24
Link:
July 11, 2024
5 Just Stop Oil Supporters Found Guilty As UN Slams Trial
Five Just Stop Oil supporters were convicted of conspiracy to cause public nuisance at Southwark Crown Court today for planning to disrupt the M25 by climbing motorway gantries in November 2022, to demand an end to new oil and gas licensing, a demand that has just been met by the incoming Labour government. [1][2]
The five defendants – Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil co-founder Roger Hallam (57, from Wales), Daniel Shaw (38, from Northampton), Lucia Whittaker De Abreu (34, from Derby), Louise Lancaster (58, from Cambridge) and Cressida Gethin (22, from Hereford) – have been remanded until their sentencing hearing next Thursday.
The jury entered guilty verdicts against all defendants after Judge Christopher Hehir removed all legal defences, ruling that the climate crisis was ‘irrelevant’ to the trial. He has indicated they now face lengthy prison sentences, despite the UN intervening publicly to question the legality of proceedings.
Four of the five defendants (Mr Hallam, Ms Lancaster, Ms Gethin and Mr Shaw), gave evidence at trial. After taking the oath to ‘tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth’, they refused to comply with the judge’s direction to finish their evidence without explaining their reasons for taking action. When cross-examined by the prosecutor, Jocelyn Ledward KC, Mr Shaw said: “I’d be happy to answer the prosecutor’s questions, but not until I’ve finished giving evidence”. Others responded in a similar vein. They then refused to leave the witness box, before honouring their oath to the jury to tell the whole truth.
On each occasion, the judge first cleared the public gallery, then ordered them to be arrested and imprisoned. The four missed substantial parts of the trial proceedings as a result. They were permitted twenty minutes to make closing speeches, which they had to prepare for from the cells.
The judge ordered that the four he had imprisoned make their closing speeches from the dock, behind glass. Mr Hallam said:
“I took an oath before God to tell you the truth; and we have received no good reason why we have not been allowed to tell you what is blindingly obvious and what I’m not allowed to tell you about; if you have not been able to hear what is blindingly obvious, it’s not a fair trial … If thousands of people were going to die further up the motorway, we would have a reasonable excuse”
Mr Shaw said:
“A few years ago when I was working for social services, before I was ever arrested, before I was ever in prison; there was a key test for me: what will people think in 20 or 30 years when we look back on this; was what we did, what happened on the M25, trying to stop the government from destroying society, was it really a public nuisance?”
Ms Lancaster said:
“I wrote this in a cell with a blue pencil, forgive me. We are being systematically silenced … Public nuisance? I acted in the public good. How can direct action to prevent cataclysmic harm to the general public not be in the public good. ‘Public nuisance’. Pernicious words. It’s not unlawful for a group committed to bring about change to protect life.”
Ms Gethin said:
“People are dying already, my generation is being cast into the dust … We are told this is a functioning democracy, but that direct actions like this are not justified … it is in that democracy that no one has been held responsible for the billions of pounds wasted on PPE, for the lives lost in Grenfell tower, for the Post Office scandal. Is it justice when the powerful are not held to account, and citizens are prosecuted for calling them out? This is why we have a jury system. Juries have common sense and, other than us, you are the only ones that are not paid to be here.”
Ms Whittaker De Abreu said:
“But now that the UN representative has returned to Geneva, the judge has gone back to where he started, saying that the existential threat to all our lives is irrelevant and that we can’t even talk about it at all! I’m sorry if I’m missing something … But I don’t understand how this is happening. It doesn’t make any sense. I feel like we’re being gaslit. I feel like I’m going mad. I feel like I’m in a horror movie. I want to wake up from this.”
On 24 June, the first day of the trial, the UN Special Rapporteur for Environmental Defenders, Michel Forst, issued an extraordinary public statement questioning the legality of proceedings. With the trial ongoing, the statement has not been reportable until now. It states: [3]
“In my letter of 12 March 2024 to the government of the United Kingdom, I expressed my serious concern about the arrest, very lengthy remand in prison and harsh bail conditions of Mr. Shaw as a result of his involvement in peaceful environmental protest to call for urgent government action concerning the climate crisis …
Following his arrest, Mr. Shaw spent 113 days in prison on remand. When eventually released from remand, he has been subject to a range of highly draconian bail conditions including, among others, a 10pm-7am curfew, an electronic monitoring tag, a requirement to sleep at his home address every night, a prohibition from having either direct or indirect contact with any of his co-defendants and a prohibition from participating in any climate change demonstration. Mr. Shaw has been subject to most of these severe restrictions on his personal life for nearly one and a half years …
I have now received new information regarding the imminent criminal trial of Mr. Shaw that I consider deeply concerning. With Mr. Shaw’s criminal trial set to start today, on 24 June 2024, I have been informed that Mr. Shaw may reasonably expect to face a prison sentence of up to two years (or more) for, in essence, his participation in a Zoom call to discuss a proposed peaceful environmental protest. The imposition of such sanction is not only appalling but may also violate the United Kingdom’s obligations under international law.”
Mr Forst, together with a colleague from the UN, attended the trial in person last Thursday and Friday. It is understood that he may issue a further statement on what he witnessed in due course.
On the day that Michel Forst attended court, the judge agreed the jury could be presented with a set of ‘Facts Not In Dispute’, which acknowledged ‘i) that the climate crisis is an ‘existential threat to humanity’; ii) that breaching the 1.5˚C global temperature limit risks catastrophic and irreversible harm; iii) that that limit is predicted to be breached permanently by 2030; iv) that as at the time of the action, the Government kept issuing new oil and gas licences’. [4]
Despite this information being presented to the jury, following the departure of Mr Forst from the trial, the judge directed the jury to treat the existential threat to humanity as “irrelevant” and to ignore it entirely.
Furthermore, despite the admission of these matters in evidence as objective ‘Facts Not In Dispute’, Judge Hehir continued to refer to the defendants’ motivations for taking action as matters of “political opinion or belief”.
On 2 July, 11 people sat quietly outside Southwark Crown Court holding signs saying “Juries deserve to hear the whole truth” and “Juries have the absolute right to acquit a defendant on their conscience.” Judge Hehir ordered the police to arrest them. A 12th person, holding a blank sign, was not arrested. The judge’s order appeared to fly in the face of the recent High Court judgement on the issue, dismissing the Solicitor General’s application for contempt of court against Trudi Warner for holding a similar sign: [5]
“[I]t is fanciful to suggest that Ms Warner’s behaviour falls into this category of contempt. The category is limited to threatening, intimidatory, abusive conduct or other forms of harassment …
The prosecution of the Insulate Britain cases, the decisions of law reached by judges in those cases, and the scope for the jury to hear evidence on matters of conscience in relation to offences allegedly committed as acts of political protest have become matters of serious public debate …
A criminal prosecution is a disproportionate approach to this situation in a democratic society.”
The following Tuesday, more than 80 people returned to Southwark Crown Court holding similar signs, in solidarity with those previously arrested. This time the judge left them undisturbed. A spokesperson for the ‘Defend Our Juries’ campaign said: [6]
“On Tuesday 2 July, Judge Hehir had 11 people arrested for holding signs outside court which said ‘Juries deserve to hear the whole truth’. He did this on the basis the signs were a serious interference with the course of justice, despite a recent High Court ruling that the criminalisation of such signs was disproportionate in a democratic society. The following Tuesday more than 80 people held the same sign outside court, and Judge Hehir left them alone. It’s hard to make sense of that unless Judge Hehir now realises he got it wrong. In which case he should apologise to those he arrested and make proper reparation.”
Following a pattern of jury acquittals in climate action cases, some judges have been taking exceptional measures to preclude ‘not guilty’ verdicts, undermining the certainty and predictability that is meant to define the rule of law. In some cases defendants have even been banned from mentioning ‘climate change’ in court, and sent to prison just for doing so. On the other hand, others have continued to allow defendants to explain their motivation to protect life and health and to defend themselves on that basis. Last November a jury acquitted nine women who broke windows at HSBC in 2021, causing an alleged £500,000 of damage. By the end of 2022 HSBC had committed to end funding for new oil and gas projects.[7] [8] [9] [10]
Meanwhile in April of this year, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the Swiss government had violated the Article 8 rights of an association of senior Swiss women, by failing to enact adequate climate policies to protect them from the health impacts of heatwaves. Given that the High Court ruled in early May that the UK Government’s climate plans are irrational and unlawful, it follows that the Article 8 rights of the British public are being violated too. [11] [12]
Until leaders act to protect us, Just Stop Oil supporters will continue to take the proportional action necessary to generate political pressure. This summer, airports will be declared sites of civil resistance. Sign up to take action at juststopoil.org.
*The defendants are available for comment and interviews from their prison cells.
UN Special Rapporteur Michel Forst is also taking media enquiries.
Press contact: 07762 987334
Tim Crosland (Defend Our Juries/ Plan B): 07795316164
Press email: juststopoilpress@protonmail.com
High-quality images & video here: https://juststopoil.org/press-media
Website: https://juststopoil.org/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JustStopOil/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/just.stopoil/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/JustStop_Oil
YouTube: https://juststopoil.org/youtube
TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@juststopoil
Notes to editors:
[1]Just Stop Oil is a coalition of groups working together to demand that the government immediately halt all future licensing and consents for the exploration, development and production of fossil fuels in the UK. Just Stop Oil is a member of the A22 Network of civil resistance projects.
Just Stop Oil ‘Blue Lights’ policy: our policy is, and has always been, to move out of the way for emergency vehicles with siren sounding and ‘blue lights’ on.
[4] https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HZe8k1TnKOGYkNyAVCxn8RnH232asUaq/view
[6]https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/82-people-defy-crown-court-judge...
[7]https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/right-protest-britain-undermining-dem...
[9]https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/nov/20/windows-major-bank-jury-climate-crisis
[10]https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/hsbc-cut-funding-new-oil-gas-fields-2022-12-14/
