A new and dangerous precedent for the right to protest

In April I wrote about trial of Trudi Warner. Trudi, a 69 year old health worker had been arrested for holding a placard outside the courts saying “Jurors you have the absolute right to acquit according to your conscience.” A week earlier the GP Dr Sarah Benn was found guilty of professional misconduct. She was taken to task for holding a placard saying “Stop New Oil” outside an oil terminal at Kingsbury.

At the time of writing the result of Trudi Warner’s trial was undisclosed. In the end the result seemed like a triumph for common sense. Mr Justice Saini ruled at the high court that there was no basis to take action against Warner. He commented that the government’s claim that her behaviour fell into the category of criminal contempt was “fanciful”. You can read more about this case in the Guardian report of 22nd April.

A month later in May, lawyers for the solicitor general, Robert Courts, informed Warner’s lawyers they are appealing against the decision. Given the long waiting list for the courts, it will be at least another year before this appeal takes place. This case could rumble on and on. 

An inappropriately harsh prison sentence

Another great injustice took place on the 18th July.  Five Just Stop Oil campaigners received the longest ever sentences for non-violent protest. They were convicted of conspiracy to cause public nuisance. Lucia Whittaker De Abreu, Cressida Gethen, Louise Lancaster and Daniel Shaw were were jailed for four years, while Roger Hallam was jailed for five years. Their crime: a Zoom call to recruit volunteers for actions which involved activists climbing gantries on the M25.

During their Trial the judge Christopher Hehir put a blocking action on any mention of climate change in their defense. This led to a farcical situation where the jury was being dismissed whenever climate change was mentioned. The defendants were sent to the cells on multiple occasions for contempt of court as they attempted to explain their reasons for action. Outside the court eleven people were arrested for holding up placards with the words “Juries deserve to hear the whole truth.”

Michel Forst, the UN’s special rapporteur on environmental defenders said “This sentence should shock the conscience of any member of the public. It should put all of us on high alert on the state of civic rights and freedoms in the United Kingdom.”

“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 interest of the government of the day.”

This new harsh approach to policing protests affects us all.

This is not just about JSO. This is about all of us, and our right to protest. Protesting is a right under Article 11 of the European Convention of Human Rights. Under this law police have a duty to protect this right. However in 2022 the new Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act came into place. This act changes the meanings and definitions of police rights to arrest.

The Human Right’s website Liberty states “The new wording gives the police very broad powers to decide what amounts to ‘serious disruption.’ This ‘serious disruption’ could include protesting against raised Tamar Bridge Tolls, or the closing of a leisure centre or library. It affects us all. It is worth reading more at Liberty’s page on the new policing bill.

We are living in a time when prisons are over crowded. Legislation is currently being passed to reduce sentences for crimes. With this in mind it seems illogical to imprison people who, out of desperation, are fighting for change on an issue that stands to threaten our future. Who are peacefully protesting for us all. And yes, it would be great if it could be sorted out by talking and sitting around a table. But that’s been happening for decades without effect. Protest is all there is left.

Posts created 43

Related Posts

Begin typing your search term above and press enter to search. Press ESC to cancel.

Back To Top