Five environmental activists from Just Stop Oil have been sentenced to up to two years in prison for their roles in a coordinated protest that brought the M25 motorway to a standstill in November 2022. While the estimated 181,000 delayed motorists may view the sentences as a measure of justice, the severity of the punishments has sparked international condemnation.
Raj Chada, a solicitor representing one of the activists, a 77-year-old woman, criticized the sentences as “excessive” and “traditionally reserved for violent offenses.” He emphasized that the UK has historically recognized non-violent protest as a fundamental right.
The latest sentences follow those handed down in July, which ranged from four to five years in prison for Just Stop Oil campaigners who organized and recruited volunteers for the M25 protest. Michel Forst, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Environmental Defenders, attended the trial and described the sentences as a “dark day for fundamental human rights in the UK.”
The government has faced pressure to address coordinated environmental campaigns by groups like Just Stop Oil, Insulate Britain, and Extinction Rebellion. In response, the previous government passed laws increasing the maximum sentences available to judges in protest cases. However, critics argue that these changes are “draconian” and stifle freedom of speech.
Tim Lancaster, whose wife Louise was jailed for four years for her role in planning the M25 shutdown, expressed concern that the laws are being used to silence dissenting voices. “We’ve always believed in dialogue and freedom of speech, but these laws shut people down,” he said.
A detail of the recent sentencing has raised further concerns. A sixth protester received a suspended sentence because they no longer wanted to be involved with Just Stop Oil. Raj Chada argued that the court should not consider an individual’s political views when determining their sentence.
Just Stop Oil is not a proscribed organization, and Chada emphasized that the courts should not punish individuals for supporting or associating with lawful groups.
While some argue that harsh sentences are necessary to deter extreme activism, others believe that the government’s approach undermines fundamental human rights. The issue is likely to be appealed and may eventually be considered by the European Court of Human Rights.
