Fiona Robertson appeared in a major protest appeal R v Hallam and others [2025] EWCA Crim 199 in which sixteen members of Just Stop Oil appealed lengthy custodial sentences imposed for environmental protests.
The group included the co-founders of Just Stop Oil, individuals who climbed gantries on the M25, individuals who tunnelled under roads providing access to the Navigator oil terminal in Thurrock, and two individuals who threw soup over Van Gogh’s Sunflowers painting the in National Gallery. The appellants sought to argue the custodial sentences imposed were manifestly excessive and a number of common issues as to the relevance of conscientious motivation, human rights and the views of the UN Special Rapportuer were raised.
The Court reduced the sentences imposed on 6 appellants and upheld the sentences imposed on the remaining 10. In doing so the court set out the following principles:
- The appellants’ conscientious motivation was a factor relevant to sentencing in each case. As stated in R v Trowland [2023] EWCA Crim 919 conscientious motivation falls most logically to be factored into the assessment of culpability. However, conscientious motivation does not preclude a finding that any appellant’s culpability is still high.
- 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. As a general proposition, a sentencing judge is not obliged to attribute specific percentage values or figures to individual factors which have been taken into account in the sentencing exercise.
- Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention for Human Rights (ECHR) were engaged in each of the appellants’ cases – in each the appellants’ message constituted ‘political speech’, to which particular respect is afforded, as it involved a call for a change in the law. Article 10 provides the right to freedom of expression; Article 11 provides the right to peaceful assembly. Sentences must not constitute a disproportionate interference with these rights.
- Although the appellants’ activities were not at the core of Articles 10 and 11, their acts of trespass or criminal damage were not completely beyond the scope of Articles 10 and 11. Rather, as in Trowland, the fact that the appellants’ actions involved criminal trespass or criminal damage significantly weakened the protections afforded by Articles 10 and 11.
- The sentence imposed in Trowland (3 years’ imprisonment) is not a benchmark and treating it as such risks undesirable and unwarranted sentence inflation.
- It would not have been appropriate for the sentencing judges to have had regard to the Aarhus Convention or the views of the UN Special Rapporteur. The Aarhus Convention is not incorporated into English law and, in any event, did not apply to the appellants’ activities – the appellants had not been penalised for exercising their rights in conformity with the provision of the Aarhus Convention but rather for committing criminal offences.
Fiona had prosecuted the 5 organisers of the M25 protest at first instance as well as at the appeal. This week she also prosecuted a further eight individuals charged with conspiracy to cause a public nuisance in respect of the same M25 protest.
Fiona was led in both cases by Jocelyn Ledward KC. The cases attracted widespread media attention:
The Guardian | BBC | Sky News
