This week marks an important moment for sixteen jailed activists from the Just Stop Oil group as they seek to appeal what many consider some of the harshest penalties ever handed down for peaceful protest in the UK. These individuals were given sentences typically reserved for more severe offenses, all for acts such as damaging picture frames, blocking roads, or, in some cases, merely discussing plans to obstruct traffic. Their actions aimed at highlighting governmental shortcomings in addressing the climate crisis have resulted in prison terms extending up to five years.
Criticism of these sentences has been swift and vocal. Amnesty International labeled them draconian, while Liberty warned of a “grave erosion of freedoms.” Global Witness condemned them as a “profound injustice,” and a UN special rapporteur called them incompatible with democratic principles. This scenario highlights a worrying trend away from the UK’s historic role as a tolerant society with a distinct separation between politics and law enforcement. Regardless of one’s political stance, the ability to protest peacefully remains a fundamental element of democracy, acting as a critical check against tyrannical leaders and irresponsible corporations.
Reflecting on my involvement both inside and outside of Parliament, I recall being arrested with others during a peaceful protest at a proposed fracking site in West Sussex back in 2013. After being forcibly removed by the police, I faced and was eventually cleared of a public order charge.
At that time, I felt compelled to act because other democratic avenues seemed exhausted, even as the MP for Brighton Pavilion, with more resources at my disposal than many. Local communities felt unheard over their genuine concerns about fracking, and public opinion polls regularly showed strong opposition to the practice. The perseverance of the protesters eventually led to the government’s 2019 decision to ban fracking in England, illustrating how citizen activism can confront corporate interests and misguided policies effectively. History shows time and again that protest catalyzes essential changes and contributes to the liberties we cherish today—be it the two-day weekend, national parks, or women’s suffrage.
This week’s appeal underscores the increasing difficulty citizens face in voicing concerns, whether about living costs, climate issues, or the health of our waterways. Recent legal expansions have broadened the term ‘public nuisance’ to include even minor disruptions like noise, arming police with authority to preemptively detain protesters. Alarming statistics show that by late 2023, at least 630 peaceful demonstrators were arrested in just one month, with UK police arresting environmental protesters at nearly triple the global rate.
Arrest often only marks the beginning of protesters’ challenges—the penalties for public nuisance charges can extend to a decade in prison. This week, one activist will appeal a five-year sentence received for participating in a Zoom discussion about a climate demonstration. Astonishingly, forty individuals spent Christmas Day in prison for opposing war and environmental neglect.
While the current appeal is narrowly focused on reducing sentences, a favorable outcome could set crucial legal precedents. Yet the deeper issue lies in the sweeping powers bestowed upon police and courts to target peaceful protest, a trend that has surged under recent governments, aided by sensationalist media portrayal of protestors.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer and his government should recognize the injustice inherent in these legislative measures, having once defended similar climate activists themselves. The Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, previously expressed concern that parts of the Public Order Act could undermine historical protest rights. Nonetheless, the government seems to be willfully moving towards the tactics employed by more authoritarian regimes.
