Julian Roger Hallam & Ors v R

Sentencing for non-violent protest follows ordinary statutory sentencing principles. Conscientious motivation is relevant, normally to culpability, but may coexist with high culpability; a judge need not quantify the reduction attributed to it. Trespass does not automatically remove protection under Articles 10 and 11, although it significantly weakens that protection. Significant property damage alone does not make protest violence or exclude those rights. Under section 63 of the Sentencing Act 2020, foreseeable harm is assessed objectively. The Aarhus Convention is not incorporated into English law and did not protect criminal offending. Sentences must remain the shortest terms commensurate with seriousness, without treating earlier sentences as tariffs.

Sixteen applications for leave to appeal against sentence arose from four Just Stop Oil protest cases. The cases concerned conspiracy to cause public nuisance, causing public nuisance under section 78 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, and criminal damage. The sentences had been imposed in the Crown Courts at Southwark and Basildon after convictions following trial or guilty pleas.

The appeals raised common questions about conscientious motivation, deterrence, Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, comparisons with sentences in other public nuisance cases, the Aarhus Convention, and the assessment of culpability and harm. The court also considered whether the individual sentences were proportionate and the shortest terms commensurate with the seriousness of the offences.

Leave to appeal was granted in all applications. The appeals were allowed in part and the remaining appeals were dismissed.

1. General sentencing principles. Sentencing non-violent protest required the ordinary principles in the Sentencing Act 2020, including assessment of culpability and harm, consideration of sentencing purposes, and the requirement that custody be the shortest term commensurate with seriousness. The court applied the principles in R v Trowland [2023] EWCA Crim 919. Conscientious motivation was relevant to culpability, although it did not prevent high culpability. A sentencing judge was not required to attach a specific percentage or figure to that factor.
2. Articles 10 and 11. Trespass did not automatically remove protest activity from the scope of those Articles. It weakened the protection and the weight to be given to it in proportionality. The court applied the usual five-stage analysis and held that proportionality had to be considered at sentence even where the rights did not provide a defence to conviction. In the Sunflowers case, shocking conduct and significant damage did not alone make the protest violent. The relevant question under section 63 of the Sentencing Act 2020 included whether serious damage might objectively have been foreseen.
3. Other matters. Comparisons with sentences for different offences were of limited assistance, particularly where the new statutory public nuisance offence was involved. The Aarhus Convention was not incorporated into English law, and article 3(8) did not protect persons penalised for committing criminal offences.
4. Individual appeals. In the M25 Conspiracy case, sentences were substituted as follows: Hallam, four years; Shaw, three years; Whittaker de Abreu, 30 months; Lancaster, three years; and Gethin, 30 months. In the M25 Gantry Climbers case, Delap’s sentence was reduced to 18 months; the other four appeals were dismissed. All appeals in the Thurrock Tunnels and Sunflowers cases were dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). Leave granted in all applications. Some sentences quashed and substituted; the remaining appeals dismissed: [2025] EWCA Crim 199.
• Crown Courts at Southwark and Basildon. The appellants had been convicted or had pleaded guilty and received custodial sentences in four protest-related cases.