On Wednesday, sixteen environmental activists will appear at the high court to challenge their lengthy prison sentences. They argue that these sentences, some ranging from 20 months to five years, are “unduly harsh” and a blow to the right to protest. This appeal comes after their involvement in nonviolent protests that focused on issues like climate change.
The activists, part of four separate cases, will present their arguments to a panel led by Lady Chief Justice Carr. They contend that recent sentencing decisions go against established legal practices regarding nonviolent civil disobedience. A strong show of support is expected outside the court, with celebrities and various organizations, including Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, rallying for their cause.
One of the prominent figures in this group is Roger Hallam, a co-founder of Extinction Rebellion. He was sentenced to five years for his part in planning protests on a video call. Other notable cases include Larch Maxey, who received three years for occupying a tunnel at an oil terminal, and Phoebe Plummer, sentenced to two years for throwing tomato soup on a famous painting at the National Gallery.
Among the appellants is 78-year-old Gaie Delap, who has faced challenges with her prison tag due to her wrist size. Supporters refer to these activists as the “Lord Walney 16.” This nickname comes from a report by Lord Walney, recommending stricter laws on groups like Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion, labeling them as “extreme protest groups.”
It’s rare for multiple cases to be combined in an appeal, suggesting the significance of this situation. Previously, Lady Carr upheld long sentences for protesters involved in similar activities, suggesting they serve as deterrents. However, supporters claim these harsh sentences are meant to intimidate others from speaking out.
Zoe Cohen from Extinction Rebellion emphasized that every citizen deserves the right to protest. She stressed that excessive sentences are an attempt to curb democratic rights. The organizations supporting the appellants argue that these sentences violate human rights standards that demand proportionality, especially concerning fundamental rights like the right to protest.
In a statement, Friends of the Earth lawyer Katie de Kauwe expressed that imprisoning peaceful protesters undermines a tolerant society. Greenpeace’s Areeba Hamid echoed this sentiment, pointing out that such long sentences for nonviolent actions do not reflect a mature society.
The decisions made in this appeal could have lasting effects on how protests are treated under the law. The diverse support for these activists indicates a growing concern over the future of civil liberties in the face of political pressure.
