Photo credit: www.theguardian.com

UK’s Increasingly Harsh Sentences for Climate Protests Raise Alarm

In December 2023, a significant event unfolded when Stephen Gingell received a six-month prison sentence for participating in a slow march for thirty minutes on Holloway Road, north London. This verdict sparked widespread shock and concern, highlighting a disturbing trend rather than an isolated incident. Over the past eight months, Climate Rights International has meticulously examined restrictions imposed on climate protests in Western democracies, revealing that the UK, particularly under Conservative governance, has enacted some of the most severe anti-protest laws in recent history.

The attention surrounding climate activism intensified with the early 2023 sentencing of Morgan Trowland and Marcus Decker, who received multi-year prison terms for their actions on the Queen Elizabeth II bridge. Trowland’s three-year sentence was notably the longest ever for a climate protest in the UK at that time, although this record would soon be surpassed. In July 2023, five fossil fuel protesters received sentences of four to five years after a Zoom meeting discussing protest actions on the M25 generated media coverage around the globe.

These sentences stand in stark contrast to penalties levied against individuals involved in more violent civil disturbances, such as recent riots in Southport, where offenders received far lighter sentences. Such discrepancies are troubling, particularly as Western governments routinely criticize authoritarian regimes, including those in Cambodia and Russia, for similarly suppressing peaceful protests. Meanwhile, UK prisons remain overcrowded—the government has even resorted to releasing certain violent offenders early due to capacity issues.

The UK government’s approach towards climate protestors has become increasingly punitive, focusing on minor disruptions. For instance, legislation introduced in 2023 by then Home Secretary Suella Braverman empowered police to intervene in protests deemed to “more than a minor degree” disruptive. The essence of protest is its impact; efforts that fail to disrupt are often ineffective. When Braverman’s proposed changes to the Public Order Act faced opposition in the House of Lords, the government shifted tactics, utilizing regulatory changes to sidestep parliamentary scrutiny.

A notable ruling from a court invalidated these regulatory changes following a challenge from the human rights organization Liberty. The court argued that the government had overstepped its authority, clarifying that the term “more than minor” does not equate to “serious.” Despite this, the Labour party, under newly appointed Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, decided to continue the previous government’s appeal against this ruling, raising questions about their stance on civil liberties.

Further changes in the law now subject protesters who engage in actions such as “locking on” with adhesive substances or handcuffs to sentences up to four and a half years, simply by causing “serious disruption” to two or more individuals or organizations. This penalty far exceeds the maximum sentence for racially aggravated assault in the UK, illustrating a concerning prioritization of law enforcement against environmental activists.

Such developments should cause significant concern about a nation that prides itself on the rule of law and its commitments to international standards of free expression and assembly. The draconian measures being implemented not only set a dangerous precedent for Western democracies but also provide justification for authoritarian regimes to tighten their grips on dissent.

Moreover, the UK government has enacted further restrictions allowing for prosecution of individuals if their protests deviate from approved routes or timings, even inadvertently. Breaking protest regulations in England and Wales now carries a maximum sentence of four and a half years—quadrupling the previous maximum imposed in 2021.

In March 2023, several members of Insulate Britain were sentenced to seven weeks in jail for contempt for referencing the climate crisis as their motivation for protesting. Additionally, judges in other cases have prohibited defendants from discussing their reasons for protesting, a decision that raises fundamental questions about the right to express motivations that drive civic actions.

Another instance involved Trudi Warner, who faced contempt charges for displaying a sign outside the courthouse during a climate protest trial, which read: “Jurors, you have an absolute right to acquit a defendant according to your conscience.” The court dismissed the case against her, deeming it “disproportionate,” yet numerous other protesters who displayed similar signs during subsequent trials face impending contempt hearings.

Regardless of one’s views on the methods employed by climate activists, the right to peaceful protest—including civil disobedience—is a fundamental aspect of democratic society. Individuals who engage in civil disobedience are aware that they may face consequences; however, enforcement of laws should be rational and sentences proportional to offenses committed.

Throughout my decade-long involvement in research and advocacy surrounding the right to protest, I have witnessed the chilling effect that restrictions can impose on civil society. If the UK aims to foster a vibrant democracy, it must begin with a reassessment of its stringent anti-protest legislation and re-establish protections for the fundamental right to protest.

Source
www.theguardian.com