Just Stop Oil Protesters Convicted Despite Being Denied Climate Facts in Trial
A stark contrast emerged during the trial of six environmental protesters from the group Just Stop Oil (JSO), who were convicted of public nuisance for climbing gantries on London's M25 motorway in 2022. The verdict has raised questions about the application of anti-protest laws, which were introduced under the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act (PCSCA).
In a similar case, three other JSO activists who participated in the same demonstration were acquitted, despite being denied the opportunity to present climate facts as part of their defense. The court at Guildford allowed them to argue for reasonable excuse, while prosecutors permitted them to include 12 climate-related facts presented by both sides.
However, Judge Perrins at Southwark Crown Court refused to allow this defense for the six protesters on trial, citing that the subjective belief of each defendant could not be considered a reasonable excuse under the terms of the act. This stance has been met with criticism from lawyers and human rights groups, who argue that it contradicts the intention of introducing the law.
The case highlights an inconsistency in how the courts handle protests, particularly when climate-related issues are involved. Lawyers point out that there is a failure to provide adequate protection for the right to free speech, while judges maintain that their decisions are based on evidence and applicable law.
Ruth Ehrlich, head of policy at Liberty, argues that the government must review its anti-protest laws in light of mounting evidence suggesting they are not fit for purpose. Adelheid Russenberger, one of those being sentenced next month, notes a disparity between how judges treated her case and that of her fellow accused.
Mel Carrington, JSO spokesperson, condemned what she described as anti-democratic behavior by the judiciary, arguing that denial of juries' right to determine whether actions were justified does not protect the public.
A stark contrast emerged during the trial of six environmental protesters from the group Just Stop Oil (JSO), who were convicted of public nuisance for climbing gantries on London's M25 motorway in 2022. The verdict has raised questions about the application of anti-protest laws, which were introduced under the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act (PCSCA).
In a similar case, three other JSO activists who participated in the same demonstration were acquitted, despite being denied the opportunity to present climate facts as part of their defense. The court at Guildford allowed them to argue for reasonable excuse, while prosecutors permitted them to include 12 climate-related facts presented by both sides.
However, Judge Perrins at Southwark Crown Court refused to allow this defense for the six protesters on trial, citing that the subjective belief of each defendant could not be considered a reasonable excuse under the terms of the act. This stance has been met with criticism from lawyers and human rights groups, who argue that it contradicts the intention of introducing the law.
The case highlights an inconsistency in how the courts handle protests, particularly when climate-related issues are involved. Lawyers point out that there is a failure to provide adequate protection for the right to free speech, while judges maintain that their decisions are based on evidence and applicable law.
Ruth Ehrlich, head of policy at Liberty, argues that the government must review its anti-protest laws in light of mounting evidence suggesting they are not fit for purpose. Adelheid Russenberger, one of those being sentenced next month, notes a disparity between how judges treated her case and that of her fellow accused.
Mel Carrington, JSO spokesperson, condemned what she described as anti-democratic behavior by the judiciary, arguing that denial of juries' right to determine whether actions were justified does not protect the public.
... I mean, can we really say that we're doing enough to address the climate crisis when our justice system is more concerned with silencing dissenting voices than listening to the facts? It's like, what's the point of having a democracy if we can't even discuss the issues that matter most to us without fear of persecution?
It's like, isn't it better to have a system where we can argue our point of view and listen to others' perspectives, rather than just trying to shut people down? The fact that judges deemed climate facts irrelevant in this case is just mind-boggling... what kind of world are we living in when science itself becomes politicized?
. im not saying protesters shouldnt be held accountable, but this is just a slippery slope. what's next? are they gonna start prosecuting people for existing in a way that might harm the planet? no way, right? 
just don't get it. they're fighting for our planet's future and we're still debating laws? 
The fact that some activists were allowed to present climate facts while others weren't is a huge red flag for me. We need to make sure our courts are taking climate change seriously and not just treating it like a sideshow.
We need some real change here, not just more of the same old stuff. 
.
. I mean, these people are just trying to bring attention to a serious issue and be heard, but instead they're being convicted of crimes that don't seem fitting for the offense 
. It's like the system is stacked against them.
. But for the ones who didn't get that chance, it's just not fair.
. If you can't express your concerns without fear of prosecution, then what's the point? It's like we're living in a time where free speech is being curtailed 
. We need to find a way to balance public safety with our right to speak out about important issues 
.
The whole thing is kinda frustrating, you know?
. And now, the courts are basically saying that if you're not willing to follow the rules, you'll get locked up 
.
.
, and our justice system is still struggling to adapt 
. The fact that these protesters were denied the chance to present climate facts highlights how muddled our priorities are 
. It's like, what's the point of having a right to free speech if you can't even discuss the pressing issues that matter most? 
. it's like the courts are trying to silence people who want to bring attention to these important issues. shouldn't we be giving them space to express themselves? anyway, this whole situation is highlighting how our anti-protest laws need a serious overhaul 
. It's like, how are we supposed to have a rational conversation about something as important as climate change if we can't even discuss it in court? 
. This whole thing just feels like a case of the government trying to silence dissenting voices 
. But I guess that's what we get when you're talking about anti-protest laws 
. It's like, what even is the point of having a jury if they can't make their own decisions about whether someone's actions were justified? 
. I mean, what's next? Are we going to start arresting people for protesting against climate change? It's like, come on, guys! If you're really concerned about public safety, maybe take some action to address the root cause of the problem instead of just prosecuting the people who are trying to bring attention to it 
. We need to stand up for these activists and demand change in the way we handle protests and activism in our society 
.
this verdict is super worrying, I mean, we're trying to tackle climate crisis and these protesters are being punished for just trying to raise awareness? 
shouldn't they be able to present their facts and figures without the courts getting in the way? 