Read Our Monthly Magazine
And support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system
Chris Packham believes that the sentencing of five Just Stop Oil protestors to lengthily jail terms last week was “one of the most grim moments of my entire life”, as the naturalist and broadcaster revealed his fears that peaceful protests may “escalate” and that the law may be applied to other groups.
On 18 July, 57-year-old Roger Hallam was jailed for five years and his co-accused, Daniel Shaw, 38, Louise Lancaster, 58, Lucia Whittaker De Abreu, 34, and Cressida Gethin, 22, were sentenced to four years.
The protestors were found guilty the previous week of conspiracy to cause a public nuisance for organising direct action protests to block the M25 during a Zoom call in November 2022.
Packham told the Byline Times Podcast with Adrian Goldberg that he had never felt “physically sick” from hearing something before, “but in the aftermath of listening to the judge dismember any mitigation that they (the Just Stop Oil protestors) proffered in terms of their health requirements, the fact that they were carers, their age, their education, so on and so forth in what can only be described as judicial thuggery. Without any shred of compassion. I did feel physically sick.”
The sentences led to UN Special Rapporteur for Environmental Defenders, Michel Forst, suggesting that the “purely punitive and repressive nature” of them may violate the UK’s obligations under international human rights law.
The sentencing followed a chaotic two-and-a-half-week trial in which four of the defendants were arrested and imprisoned for contempt of court after repeatedly ignoring a ruling from Judge Christopher Hehir prohibiting them from using the climate breakdown as a defence.
The judge also ordered, a few days into the trial, on 2 July, the arrest of 11 protestors outside the court who were silently holding placards displaying the words, “Juries deserve to hear the whole truth” and “Juries have the absolute right to acquit a defendant on their conscience”.
Packham said the protestors being denied the right to defend themselves was “one of the strangest phenomenon about this case”, and one that he fears – and thinks the public need to be aware – could be applied to other defendants.
“The way that the law has been structured and the way that the judiciary is acting means that it could be wrought upon any activist of any kind, any protestor, so whilst at the moment it is focused on those that are justifiably raising the alarm when it comes to climate, let’s not forget that, you know, in a month’s time, in two months time, in six months time, that you know, this could be about human rights, this could be about gender rights, this could be about the right to strike.”
Packham added that these “repressive laws set a very dangerous precedent and it’s important that we do everything we can now as rapidly as possible, given that this case has reached a level of international condemnation, to make sure that these laws are repealed, and more sensible laws are put in place”.
Packham also lamented how the media focus was on the “disruption” caused to motorists on the M25 and the costs, while “so little attention was paid to the environmental damage caused by climate change, which is what the protestors were concerned about”.
During the trial, the court heard the group tried to recruit activists to take part in the protests, that, according to the prosecution, caused disruption leading to a “notional economic loss” of almost £750,000, in addition to a cost of almost £1 million to the police.
Packham contrasted the action with the State Opening of Parliament, questioning what the police bill for that would be given the “colossal number of police and security agents there”.
“I’m not saying we don’t, we shouldn’t pay for them to protect our King and our new government, Prime Minister, etc. But focusing on the policing costs of this is not entirely rational.”