Six climate protesters have sentences reduced at Court of Appeal
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00On the common issues, we ruled as follows. The following central principles could be identified.
00:08A. The exercise of sentencing in cases of non-violent protests is to be carried out in accordance with normal sentencing principles,
00:18including those contained in sections 57, 63 and 231 subsection 2 of the Sentencing Act 2020.
00:30B. The correct approach to issues that may arise when sentencing in cases of non-violent protests,
00:38such as conscientious motivation and deterrence, was considered authoritatively in the case of Trowland,
00:462024 One Weekly Law Reports 1164, to which there was no challenge.
00:54The appellant's conscientious motivation was a factor relevant to sentencing in each case.
01:01As stated in Trowland at paragraph 55, conscientious motivation falls most logically to be factored into the assessment of culpability.
01:12However, conscientious motivation does not preclude a finding that any appellant's culpability is still high.
01:21C. A sentencing judge is not obliged to specify an amount by which they have reduced a custodial term to reflect a defendant's conscientious motivation.
01:32As a general proposition, a sentencing judge is not obliged to attribute specific percentage values or figures to individual factors
01:42which have been taken into account in the sentencing exercise.
01:47D. Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention for Human Rights were engaged in each of the appellant's cases.
01:56Article 10 provides the right to freedom of expression. Article 11 provides the right to peaceful assembly.
02:05Sentences must not constitute a disproportionate interference with these rights.
02:10The common law and the European Convention for Human Rights are in step.
02:16If the common law principles are applied properly, the defendant's European Convention for Human Rights should be observed.
02:24E. Although the appellant's activities were not at the core of Articles 10 and 11,
02:32their acts of trespass or criminal damage were not completely beyond the scope of Articles 10 and 11.
02:39Rather, as was stated in Trowland at paragraphs 74 and 75,
02:46the fact that the appellant's actions involved criminal trespass or criminal damage significantly weakened the protections afforded by Articles 10 and 11.
02:57F. References to the sentencing outcomes in different cases are unlikely to be helpful, since each case turns on its own facts.
03:08The sentence imposed in Trowland on Morgan Trowland, three years' imprisonment, is not a benchmark
03:15and treating it as such risks undesirable and unwarranted sentence inflation.
03:22G. It would not have been appropriate for the sentencing judges to have had regard either to the Aarhus Convention
03:30or the views of the United Nations Special Rapporteur.
03:35We then turned to the sentences in each individual case, and we considered the specific facts of each appellant's case.
03:45We have decided as follows.
03:48The sentences imposed in the M25 conspiracy case were quashed, and the following sentences substituted.
03:58Roger Hallam, four years' imprisonment.
04:01Daniel Shaw, three years' imprisonment.
04:05Lucia Whittaker-Diabro, 30 months' imprisonment.
04:09Louise Lancaster, three years' imprisonment.
04:12Cressida Gethin, 30-30 months' imprisonment.
04:18In the M25 gantry climbers case, the sentence imposed on Gaye de Lappe was quashed
04:26and a sentence of 18 months' imprisonment substituted.
04:31The appeals by Paul Susek, Theresa Higginson, Paul Bell and George Simonson were dismissed.
04:39In the Thurrock Tunnels case, the appeals by Chris Bennett, Dr Larch Maxey, Samuel Johnson and Joe Howlett were dismissed.
04:49And in the Sunflowers case, the appeals by Phoebe Plummer and Anna Holland were dismissed.