"Just Stop Oil" protesters - lengthy sentences not manifestly excessive

October 2022 saw two "Just Stop Oil" protesters climb the Queen Elizabeth II bridge which carries the A282 road over the River Thames. It is the only way, by road, to cross the river to the east of London.

The bridge had to be closed until the protest ended and numerous vehicles endured long delays - Just Stop Oil protesters removed from Dartford Crossing bridge and arrested | Just Stop Oil | The Guardian 18 October 2022.

One of the protester's demands was for the government to halt all new oil and gas licences but it appears that such demands have fallen on deaf ears - Sunak announces major expansion to North Sea oil drilling - here's why it's so controversial (inews.co.uk)

The two protesters - Morgan Trowland (now aged 40) and Marcus Decker (now age 34) - stood trial in the Crown Court at Basildon before HHJ Collery KC and a jury. They were charged with intentionally or recklessly causing a public nuisance - s78 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022.

Both men were convicted on 4 April 2023 and, on 21 April 2023, Trowland was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment and Decker to 2 years 7 months.

The men appealed against their sentences claiming that the sentences were manifestly excessive and otherwise a disproportionate interference with their rights of freedom of expression and assembly under Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights and so unlawful contrary to s. 6 of the Human Rights Act 1988.

The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

Carr LJ, Cutts and Thornton JJ dismissed the appeals - Trowland and Decker v R [2023} EWCA Crim 919. [Lady Justice Carr is to be the next Lord Chief Justice - previous post].

'... sentences of three years' imprisonment for Mr Trowland and two years and seven months' imprisonment for Mr Decker were severe. But we have concluded that they were not manifestly excessive; nor did they amount to a disproportionate interference with their rights of freedom of expression and assembly under Article 10 and Article 11 so as to be unlawful. This was very serious offending by repeat protest offenders who were trespassers (and on bail) at the time; whist the protest was non-violent as such, it had extreme consequences for many, many members of the public. Mr Trowland stated in his evidence that "the warning message is dependent on disruption". The grave consequences that we have described were not only inevitable, as the protesters would have known, they were precisely what the protesters intended and set out to achieve.'