Sit-down demonstration held amid Court of Appeal challenges to protest sentences

Scores of people staged a sit-down protest outside the Royal Courts of Justice on Thursday as bids to appeal against the sentences of more than a dozen climate activists continued at the Court of the Appeal.

The Strand in central London was closed as campaigners sat outside the court building, with some holding pictures of 16 activists currently seeking to challenge their sentences for their involvement in climate protests.

In a letter sent to the Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr, one of three judges hearing the appeal bids, campaign group Defend Our Juries said Thursday’s protest did not intend to “cause disruption” but sought “only to highlight, in a public and proportionate way, that what is occurring is the corruption of democracy and the rule of law”.

Dozens of police officers also attended the protest, which ended at around 1.45pm.

Those appealing against their sentences received jail terms of between five years and 15 months for their roles in four demonstrations held by Just Stop Oil (JSO) between August and November 2022.

Following the demonstration outside the Royal Courts of Justice, a spokesperson for JSO said those in prison were “political prisoners” and had been jailed as the group “threatens the profits of the fossil fuel industry”.

“We must ensure our leaders are held to account and do the right thing,” they added.

A spokesperson for the Metropolitan Police said the protesters “left the road without conditions being imposed and the majority left the scene”, but “a smaller number remained on the pavement until the conclusion of the court day”.

They continued: “No arrests were made in relation to the sit down in the road as no serious disruption was caused.

“Officers remained in the area to ensure any incidents requiring police intervention were swiftly dealt with.”

Lawyers for the 16 told the Court of Appeal on Wednesday that their sentences were “manifestly excessive”, breached their human rights, and should have taken into account their “conscientious motivation”.

The Crown Prosecution Service is opposing the appeal bids, claiming that “deterrence is required in order to protect the public”.

Roger Hallam, co-founder of JSO and Extinction Rebellion – another environmental campaign group, was jailed for five years for agreeing to disrupt traffic by having protesters climb onto gantries over the M25 for four successive days.

Daniel Shaw, Louise Lancaster, Lucia Whittaker De Abreu, and Cressida Gethin each received four-year jail terms for their involvement in the same protest.

George Simonson, Theresa Higginson, Paul Bell, Gaie Delap and Paul Sousek were imprisoned for between two years and 20 months for their involvement in protests on the M25, during which they climbed onto gantries over the motorway.

Larch Maxey, Chris Bennett, Samuel Johnson and Joe Howlett were jailed for between three years and 15 months after occupying tunnels dug under the road leading to the Navigator Oil Terminal in Thurrock, Essex.

Phoebe Plummer and Anna Holland were sentenced to two years and 20 months respectively after almost “destroying” Vincent van Gogh’s Sunflowers by throwing soup on its protective glass at London’s National Gallery.

On Wednesday, Danny Friedman KC, for the 16, told the court that they “did what they did out of sacrifice” and that the sentences passed were “considerably longer than one would have expected”.

In joint written submissions, barristers for the protesters said: “The underlying rationale for recognising civil disobedience as a qualifier of culpability is that the unlawful act is committed in obedience to conscience, at personal cost and potential sacrifice of liberty, and not only in service beyond oneself but, whether others like it or not, in service to those whose rights are interfered with by virtue of the civil disobedient act.”

They continued: “No crime is like the crime of civil disobedience, and the offender, even when the method is deemed by law to be disproportionate and otherwise open to moral criticism for its adverse effect on others, retains a ‘moral difference’ at the point of judicial penalty.”

In joint written submissions, barristers for the CPS said that each of the sentencing judges was “justified in passing the sentences in respect of each of the applicants”, which were “entirely in line” with the law.

They said: “Most of these offenders were already on bail for other offences, and many had numerous previous convictions for protest offending.

“They were acting as part of an organised network involving very many offenders, with, in these cases, a clearly stated intention of an escalation in the gravity of their offending, in the M25 cases in breach of an injunction, that all knew would put those who were apprehended at risk of arrest, prosecution and punishment.”

Environmental campaign groups Friends of the Earth (FoE) and Greenpeace UK are intervening in the case, previously stating that the sentences posed a “serious threat to our democracy”.

Baroness Carr, Mr Justice Lavender and Mr Justice Griffiths will hand down their judgment at a later date.