Recent court rulings have sparked outrage among campaigners and legal observers, as violent far-right anti-immigration protesters have been handed significantly lighter sentences compared to non-violent environmental activists. The disparity has raised questions about the fairness and consistency of the British justice system, particularly in cases involving political activism.
Just Stop Oil Activists See Mixed Results in Appeals
The issue came to the forefront as Just Stop Oil co-founder Roger Hallam and 15 other activists challenged their prison sentences for their involvement in protests between August and November 2022. The group had been jailed for terms ranging from 15 months to five years for their roles in demonstrations, including a high-profile plot to disrupt traffic on the M25 motorway. During the protest, 45 activists climbed onto gantries above the motorway, causing significant disruption.
Hallam, initially sentenced to five years, has had his term reduced to four years on appeal. Other activists involved in the same protest also saw their sentences reduced. Daniel Shaw and Louise Lancaster had their four-year sentences cut to three years, while Lucia Whittaker De Abreu and Cressida Gethin saw their sentences reduced to 30 months. Gaie Delap, who was jailed for 20 months, had her sentence reduced to 18 months.
However, not all appeals were successful. Ten of the 16 activists had their appeals dismissed, including George Simonson, Theresa Higginson, Paul Bell, and Paul Sousek, who were imprisoned for between two years and 20 months. Similarly, Dr Larch Maxey, Chris Bennett, Samuel Johnson, and Joe Howlett, who occupied tunnels dug under a road leading to the Navigator Oil Terminal in Thurrock, Essex, saw their sentences of between three years and 15 months upheld.
Phoebe Plummer and Anna Holland, who were sentenced to two years and 20 months respectively for throwing soup at the protective glass of Vincent van Gogh’s Sunflowers at the National Gallery, also had their appeals dismissed.
Lawyers Argue Sentences Were “Manifestly Excessive”
Lawyers for the activists argued that the sentences were “manifestly excessive” and breached their clients’ human rights. They contended that the court should have taken into account the activists’ “conscientious motivation” and the non-violent nature of their protests. However, the Crown Prosecution Service opposed the appeals, stating that “deterrence is required in order to protect the public.”
The Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr, who read out a summary of the Court of Appeal’s ruling, faced a silent protest from campaigners in court. Several stood and turned their backs, wearing T-shirts emblazoned with the words “Corruption in Court.”
Contrast with Far-Right Sentencing
The leniency shown to far-right anti-immigration protesters has drawn sharp criticism. In recent years, individuals involved in violent far-right demonstrations, including those targeting migrants and minority communities, have received comparatively lighter sentences. For example, members of far-right groups convicted of assault, vandalism, and incitement to racial hatred have often been given suspended sentences or community service, even when their actions posed a direct threat to public safety.
Even the sentences handed down following the rioting and violent disorder in August 2024 saw sentences either similar or lower than those handed down to the non violent protesters at Just Stop Oil, for example.
This disparity has led to accusations of a double standard in the justice system, with environmental activists facing harsher penalties for non-violent civil disobedience than far-right protesters engaged in violent behaviour. Critics argue that the courts are prioritising the protection of infrastructure and economic interests over addressing the urgent threat of climate change, while downplaying the dangers posed by far-right extremism.
A Growing Divide
The contrasting treatment of these two groups highlights a growing divide in how the justice system responds to different forms of protest. Environmental activists, who often engage in non-violent direct action to draw attention to the climate crisis, are increasingly being criminalised and handed severe sentences. Meanwhile, far-right protesters, whose actions frequently involve violence and hate speech, appear to benefit from more lenient treatment.
Campaigners have warned that this trend risks undermining public trust in the justice system and could have a chilling effect on peaceful protest. As the climate crisis intensifies, the role of civil disobedience in driving political change is likely to become even more contentious, raising difficult questions about the balance between public order and the right to protest.
For now, the activists and their supporters remain defiant. As one campaigner outside the court remarked, “The real crime is not throwing soup at a painting or blocking a motorway. The real crime is the destruction of our planet, and the failure of those in power to act.”
