The Court of Appeal reviewed the sentences imposed on five Just Stop Oil protesters who had been convicted of conspiracy to commit a public nuisance for planning to block the M25. The Court determined that the sentences were “manifestly excessive,” noting that the Crown Court had failed to account for the defendants’ conscientious motivations. While not a mitigating factor, such motivations were found to reduce culpability under common law principles. The Court also stressed that Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights—which safeguard freedom of expression and peaceful assembly—remained applicable even when a protest involved trespass or minor criminal offenses. It rejected the restrictive interpretation adopted in DPP v Cuciurean. The ruling affirmed that protest actions continue to attract some level of ECHR protection, and that sentencing in such cases must include a proportionality assessment when those rights are engaged.
Landmark Case - Stop Oil Protesters
R v Hallam and Others [2025] EWCA Crim 199
The Court of Appeal reviewed the sentences imposed on five Just Stop Oil protesters who had been convicted of conspiracy to commit a public nuisance for planning to block the M25. The Court determined that the sentences were “manifestly excessive,” noting that the Crown Court had failed to account for the defendants’ conscientious motivations. While not a mitigating factor, such motivations were found to reduce culpability under common law principles. The Court also stressed that Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights—which safeguard freedom of expression and peaceful assembly—remained applicable even when a protest involved trespass or minor criminal offenses. It rejected the restrictive interpretation adopted in DPP v Cuciurean. The ruling affirmed that protest actions continue to attract some level of ECHR protection, and that sentencing in such cases must include a proportionality assessment when those rights are engaged.