The Court of Appeal reduces sentences of Just Stop Oil protesters understood to be the longest terms of imprisonment imposed on peaceful protestors in modern times.
The Court of Appeal has handed down its decision in R v Hallam and Others [2025] EWCA Crim 199, determining sixteen applications for leave to appeal against sentence in “Just Stop Oil” protest cases. The Court’s judgment confirms that, even in relation to actions that cause serious disruption or are shocking to the public, the sentencing judge must still consider the conscientious motivation of an offender who engages in an act of civil disobedience.
The appeals concerned:
- The M25 Conspiracy Case. Roger Hallam, Daniel Shaw, Lucia Whittaker de Abreu, Louise Lancaster and Cressida Gethin were convicted of conspiracy to cause a public nuisance in respect of a protest on various gantries across the M25 motorway in November 2022. Immediate custodial sentences of 5 years (in the case of Mr Hallam) and 4 years (in the case of the remaining individuals) were imposed. These are understood to be the longest terms of imprisonment imposed on peaceful protestors in modern times.
- The M25 Gantry Climbers Case: Five of the appellants were among those who climbed gantries over the M25 in November 2022 as part of the protest organised by the defendants in the M25 Conspiracy Case. They were convicted of causing public nuisance. Immediate custodial sentences ranging from 20 to 24 months were imposed.
- The Thurrock Tunnels Case. In August 2022, protesters occupied tunnels under the roads providing access to the industrial estate which includes the Navigator oil terminal in Thurrock, Essex. Four of the appellants were convicted of conspiracy to cause public nuisance and sentenced, variously, to terms of immediate custody ranging from 18 to 36 months.
- The Sunflowers Case. In October 2022, Phoebe Plummer and Anna Holland threw soup onto the protective glass covering a Vincent van Gogh painting known as “Sunflowers” in the National Gallery. They were each convicted of criminal damage and immediate custodial sentences of 24 months and 20 months were imposed respectively.
In a decision handed down on 7 March 2025, the Court of Appeal identified a number of central principles:
- In each of the appeals, the appellants’ conscientious motivation was a factor relevant to sentencing and, as set out in R v Trowland [2023] EWCA Crim 919, fell to be factored into the assessment of culpability. To rule otherwise even on the challenging facts of these protests would be “an error for the sentencing judge” (§21(i-ii))
- The appellants’ rights to free expression and assembly protected under Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention for Human Rights were engaged in each case, even where those rights did not afford them a defence. A sentencing judge should ensure that the sentence imposed does not constitute a disproportionate interference with those rights.
- In all cases, the appellants’ message involved ‘political speech’, “to which particular respect is afforded”, and the fact that they could have communicated their message without trespassing or committing a criminal offence “did not mean that their activity ceased to be an expression of their views” (§28).
- On the public nuisance cases, while the appellants’ activities were not at the core of Articles 10 and 11, it was an error to conclude that “their acts of trespass removed them completely from the scope of Articles 10 and 11”. Rather, “the fact that the appellants’ expressions of opinion involved criminal trespass significantly weakened the protections afforded by Articles 10 and 11 (and so the weight to be attached to those protections when considering proportionality of sentence)” (§36).
- In relation to the Sunflowers Case, the Court held that the protesters’ actions “[w]hile shocking, were not violent” and therefore fell within the scope of the Convention (§41).
In rejecting the Crown’s argument that Articles 10 and 11 are not engaged at the sentencing stage in a protest case if protesters are trespassing and otherwise committed an offence criminalised by the Parliament, the Court held:
“The fact that this proportionality exercise had been conducted in relation to the prosecution of the offences did not, in itself, mean that proportionality did not also fall to be considered at the point where a sentence was to be passed. The proportionality of any interference with ECHR rights may be particularly relevant at the sentencing stage, even though the ECHR rights in question do not provide a defence to the charge” (§55)
Moreover, the Court observed generally that the “severe” and “arguably manifestly excessive” custodial sentence of three years considered in Trowland should not be regarded as a “benchmark”, because this could lead to “undesirable and unwarranted sentence inflation” (§7(iv)).
The Court went on to consider the specific facts of each case. The sentences imposed on the appellants in the M25 Conspiracy Case were reduced on the basis that they were manifestly excessive and that no account had been given to conscientious motivation and Articles 10 and 11. The Court considered it “also necessary to reduce sentence inflation” (§§86-87). Roger Hallam’s sentence was reduced from 5 to 4 years. The sentences of Daniel Shaw and Lousie Lancaster were reduced to 3 years. The sentence of Lucia Whittaker de Breu and Gethin were reduced to 30 months.
The sentence of Gaie Delap of the appellants in the M25 Gantry Climbers Case was also reduced to 18 months.
The remaining appeals were dismissed.
Danny Friedman KC (with Owen Greenhill) acted for Mr Hallam, Ms Whittaker de Abreu, Mr Shaw, Ms Gethin and Ms Lancaster (instructed Hodge Jones & Allen Solicitors).
Robbie Stern acted for Ms Lancaster.
Rosalind Comyn acted for Ms Plummer ( instructed by Hodge Jones & Allen Solicitors).
Jessica Jones (led by Alex Goodman KC) acted for the Intervenors, Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace (instructed by Lloyds PR Solicitors)
The other advocates for the appellant teams were Brenda Campbell KC, Jacob Bindman, Raj Chada, Laura O’Brien, Francesca Cociani and John Briant.
The judgment is available here.