LONDON – On Friday, a British court dismissed most appeals from environmental activists who had been imprisoned for acts such as halting traffic, obstructing an oil facility, and throwing soup on a Vincent van Gogh painting. The activists, from the group Just Stop Oil, argued the prison terms ranging from 15 months to five years were “manifestly excessive” given their disruptive yet peaceful nature. They claimed the jailed members are political prisoners acting in self-defense to safeguard communities and the environment.
Out of the 16 protesters appealing their sentences, three Court of Appeal judges refused the appeals of 10 activists but did slightly reduce the imprisonment terms for six individuals involved in 2022 demonstrations. These included acts like climbing structures above busy highways. Roger Hallam, a co-founder of Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil, saw his original five-year sentence trimmed to four years.
The judges acknowledged that all appellants were driven by “a conscientious desire” to voice their climate change concerns. Nevertheless, they emphasized that strong motivation did not eliminate the high culpability of any appellant’s actions. Raj Chada, representing the claimants, noted Hallam’s reduced sentence as recognition of overly harsh penalties that are frequently handed to protesters in England. However, Chada expressed disappointment that many other sentences stood firm and mentioned plans to possibly escalate the case to the U.K. Supreme Court.
Activists whose appeals were unsuccessful consisted of those who had dug tunnels beneath a road to an oil terminal in Southeast England and those who had thrown soup on Van Gogh’s “Sunflowers” at London’s National Gallery. After the decision, activists protested inside the gallery, with footage showing an individual sitting by the “Sunflowers” painting, discussing climate change’s impacts while wearing a shirt with an orange-streaked image of the artwork.
As Chief Justice Sue Carr delivered the ruling, several campaigners turned their backs in the courtroom wearing shirts that proclaimed “Corruption in Court.” Previous anti-protest law amendments by the U.K.’s Conservative government were introduced to counter travelable and eco-activist disruptions. These laws aimed to prevent damage to the economy and disturbances in day-to-day life.
Civil liberties advocates argue the tightened laws compromise the right to peaceful protest and are urging the new Labour Party government to amend the restrictions. Areeba Hamid, co-executive director of Greenpeace UK, labeled the sentences as unprecedented and out of place in a democracy, even with some reductions. Hamid underlined the importance of protecting the freedom to protest against powerful entities.
Dave Pares, speaking for Prime Minister Keir Starmer, stated that the appropriateness of sentences is a judicial matter. He affirmed the need for police and judicial actions when protests cause significant disruptions.
