(London, March 7, 2025) – The modest prison sentence reductions for peaceful climate protesters issued by the Court of Appeals fail to address the profound failure of the U.K.’s legal and judicial systems to proportionally address peaceful civil disobedience, Climate Rights International said today. On March 7, the Court of Appeals slightly reduced the prison sentences imposed on six climate protesters but rejected appeals from ten other activists sentenced to prison for nonviolent protests.
Roger Hallam, originally sentenced to five years in prison for conspiring to disrupt traffic on the M25, had his sentence reduced to four years. Fellow protesters Daniel Shaw and Louise Lancaster, who each received four-year sentences, saw their terms reduced to three years, while Lucia Whittaker De Abreu and Cressida Gethin had their sentences reduced from four years to 30 months. Gaie Delap, previously sentenced to 20 months, had her sentence reduced to 18 months. However, the court denied sentence reductions for ten other protesters.
Referring to Hallam’s case, the chief justice said, “we consider a sentence of five years’ imprisonment in Mr. Hallam’s case to be manifestly excessive.” The court did not explain why a four-year sentence was not excessive for a peaceful act of civil disobedience. Lawyers representing the protesters are considering an appeal to the Supreme Court.
“If the revised sentences had been handed down a year ago, we would have been stunned by their severity, so this should not be seen as a significant step forward for freedom of expression,” said Trevor Stankiewicz, Legal Fellow at Climate Rights International. “Spending years in prison for a peaceful protest is still a miscarriage of justice. These draconian sentences point to the need for repeal of the Public Order Act, which is better suited to an authoritarian state than a healthy democracy.”
In September 2024, Climate Rights International published On Thin Ice: Disproportionate Responses to Climate Change Protesters in Democratic Countries, about crackdowns on peaceful climate protesters in the U.K. and other countries.
Phoebe Plummer and Anna Holland, who were sentenced to two years and 20 months respectively for throwing paint on the protective glass covering Vincent van Gogh’s Sunflowers at the National Gallery, did not receive a sentence reduction—despite the painting suffering no permanent damage.
“The criminal justice system is failing to distinguish between symbolic acts of protest and actual harm, all while turning a blind eye to those most responsible for the destruction of our planet,” said Stankiewicz.
Activists initially hoped that the election of the Labour government would mark a shift away from the hardline approach to climate protests embraced by the previous Conservative administration. However, instead of amending or repealing repressive anti-protest measures adopted by the Conservatives, they have defended them in court. The prosecution of climate protesters and demands for long sentences highlight the approach of successive governments to treat climate protesters as criminals rather than concerned citizens acting in the public interest. The legal framework, particularly under the controversial provisions of the Public Order Act added by the last administration, has been weaponized to suppress dissent, prioritizing punitive measures over democratic freedoms. This continued pattern of lengthy prison sentences is setting a dangerous precedent, chilling protest, and undermining the U.K.’s reputation as a democratic nation that respects fundamental rights, Climate Rights International said.
From the suffragettes to the anti-apartheid movement, social movements in the U.K. have long relied on civil disobedience as a means of forcing necessary change. These prosecutions and long sentences mark a profound break from Britain’s commitment to the right to peaceful protest and freedom of expression.
“We’re regularly seeing climate change-related disasters—like flooding in many parts of England, typhoons in the Philippines, and wildfires in Los Angeles—consume and destroy whole communities,” Stankiewicz said. “Yet, we don’t see fossil fuel companies being held accountable for that destruction. Instead, successive governments and the courts are punishing people who are sounding the alarm to try to save humanity from destruction. The absurdity is impossible to ignore.”
