19July 2024
James Greig
Along with four other Just Stop Oil activists, 22-year-old Cambridge student Cressie Gethin has been sentenced to four years in prison for ‘conspiracy to cause public nuisance’
In one of the UK’s most disturbing crackdowns on civil liberties yet, five Just Stop Oil members have been sentenced to years in prison for “conspiracy to cause public nuisance” – a new criminal offence introduced by the Tory government two years ago.
Roger Hallam, Daniel Shaw, Louise Lancaster, Lucia Whittaker De Abreu and Cressie Gethin were found guilty last week for planning a direct-action protest which disrupted London’s motorways across four days in 2022.
Hallem – an environmental activist who co-founded the Extinction Rebellion, Just Stop Oil and Insulate Britain – was sentenced to five years in prison. He was not part of the planning or the action itself, he argued, but simply gave a speech on civil disobedience as an effective form of climate activism. The four other members were each sentenced to four years, including Cressie Gethin, a Cambridge student who is just 22 years old. These sentences are extremely harsh, and thought to be the longest handed out for non-violent protest in British history. For context, the average prison sentence for sexual offences (including rape) is five and a half years; for robbery it is four years, and for violence against the person it is 1.7.
The five defendants had taken part in a Zoom call prior to the direct action, during which they discussed how to recruit volunteers and cause “the biggest disruption in modern British history” – all in an effort to force the government to halt new oil and gas exploration in the North Sea. This meeting was infiltrated and recorded by a journalist from the Sun, who subsequently contacted the police.
During her appearance in court, Gethin – who studies music – defended her actions. She said, “I want to remind the court once more that my reasons for taking action were not beliefs or opinions. Earth’s life-support systems are breaking down due to human activities, whether we believe it or not. These are not beliefs or opinions and feeling strongly that this is wrong is greatly understandable, I would argue. I deeply regret that this action was necessary … I maintain that it was necessary and I stand by my actions as the most effective option available to me.”
The judge presiding over the case acknowledged that “some” of the concerns motivating Just Stop Oil are “at least to some extent” shared by many. But he argued the defendants had crossed the line from “concerned campaigners to fanatics”. He also denied the defendants the opportunity to bring in any evidence about the climate crisis, which they wanted to use to explain their motives and justify their actions. According to Hallam, the judge dismissed a 250-page dossier of leading scientific research as invalid, and then threatened to arrest Hallam if he continued to speak about the consequences of climate breakdown in court.
This forms part of a worrying trend. In recent years, there have been a number of cases where juries have failed to convict activists after hearing about and sympathising with their motives. In response, the legal system has clamped down on the freedom of expression of defendants in courts. Three Insulate Britain activists are now serving jail time after defying orders not to discuss fuel poverty, climate crisis and the history of civil disobedience during their court appearance. When activists are barred from explaining their motives, they are denied the possibility of a truly fair trial.
According to Michel Forst, the UN’s special rapporteur on environmental defenders, who issued a statement at the end of the trail, “Today is a dark day for peaceful environmental protest in the UK. This sentence should shock the conscience of any member of the public. It should also put all of us on high alert on the state of civic rights and freedoms in the United Kingdom. Rulings like today’s set a very dangerous precedent, not just for environmental protest but any form of peaceful protest that may, at one point or another, not align with the interests of the government of the day.”
James Greig
Cressie GethinPhotography Leon Neal/Getty Images
Along with four other Just Stop Oil activists, 22-year-old Cambridge student Cressie Gethin has been sentenced to four years in prison for ‘conspiracy to cause public nuisance’
In one of the UK’s most disturbing crackdowns on civil liberties yet, five Just Stop Oil members have been sentenced to years in prison for “conspiracy to cause public nuisance” – a new criminal offence introduced by the Tory government two years ago.
Roger Hallam, Daniel Shaw, Louise Lancaster, Lucia Whittaker De Abreu and Cressie Gethin were found guilty last week for planning a direct-action protest which disrupted London’s motorways across four days in 2022.
Hallem – an environmental activist who co-founded the Extinction Rebellion, Just Stop Oil and Insulate Britain – was sentenced to five years in prison. He was not part of the planning or the action itself, he argued, but simply gave a speech on civil disobedience as an effective form of climate activism. The four other members were each sentenced to four years, including Cressie Gethin, a Cambridge student who is just 22 years old. These sentences are extremely harsh, and thought to be the longest handed out for non-violent protest in British history. For context, the average prison sentence for sexual offences (including rape) is five and a half years; for robbery it is four years, and for violence against the person it is 1.7.
The five defendants had taken part in a Zoom call prior to the direct action, during which they discussed how to recruit volunteers and cause “the biggest disruption in modern British history” – all in an effort to force the government to halt new oil and gas exploration in the North Sea. This meeting was infiltrated and recorded by a journalist from the Sun, who subsequently contacted the police.
During her appearance in court, Gethin – who studies music – defended her actions. She said, “I want to remind the court once more that my reasons for taking action were not beliefs or opinions. Earth’s life-support systems are breaking down due to human activities, whether we believe it or not. These are not beliefs or opinions and feeling strongly that this is wrong is greatly understandable, I would argue. I deeply regret that this action was necessary … I maintain that it was necessary and I stand by my actions as the most effective option available to me.”
The judge presiding over the case acknowledged that “some” of the concerns motivating Just Stop Oil are “at least to some extent” shared by many. But he argued the defendants had crossed the line from “concerned campaigners to fanatics”. He also denied the defendants the opportunity to bring in any evidence about the climate crisis, which they wanted to use to explain their motives and justify their actions. According to Hallam, the judge dismissed a 250-page dossier of leading scientific research as invalid, and then threatened to arrest Hallam if he continued to speak about the consequences of climate breakdown in court.
This forms part of a worrying trend. In recent years, there have been a number of cases where juries have failed to convict activists after hearing about and sympathising with their motives. In response, the legal system has clamped down on the freedom of expression of defendants in courts. Three Insulate Britain activists are now serving jail time after defying orders not to discuss fuel poverty, climate crisis and the history of civil disobedience during their court appearance. When activists are barred from explaining their motives, they are denied the possibility of a truly fair trial.
According to Michel Forst, the UN’s special rapporteur on environmental defenders, who issued a statement at the end of the trail, “Today is a dark day for peaceful environmental protest in the UK. This sentence should shock the conscience of any member of the public. It should also put all of us on high alert on the state of civic rights and freedoms in the United Kingdom. Rulings like today’s set a very dangerous precedent, not just for environmental protest but any form of peaceful protest that may, at one point or another, not align with the interests of the government of the day.”
No comments:
Post a Comment