Climate trials continue as temperatures rise and justice withers – 2
JVL Introduction
Haroon Siddique reports the rough justice handed out to climate protesters with radically different outcomes for the same offences in different trials.
He describes two trials concerning group of three and six defendants, all of whom had stood on gantries on the M25 to campaign for the ending of licensing new oil and gas exploration and extraction in the UK and its waters. They were all charged with public nuisance.
In one trial in Guildford the judge agreed that defendants could contribute what we know about increasing climate catastrophes caused by greenhouse gas accumulations to the agreed facts of the case and report their motivation for actions.
In the second trial, in Southwark, climate facts were not accepted and the judge insisted that no “excuse” was legally permissible. In Guildford the jury found them not guilty and in Southwark the defendants were found guilty with the probability of custodial sentences.
TB
This article was originally published by the Guardian on Wed 5 Nov 2025. Read the original here.
Just Stop Oil protesters convicted after being denied right to state climate facts
Lawyers call for clarity over law as six are found guilty while being stopped from using defence used by fellow activists
Loading article text…
“Six environmental protesters were convicted after they were denied the ability to put a “reasonable excuse” defence or climate facts before the jury, despite these being afforded to other activists acquitted for taking part in the same demonstration.”
A crucial question:
Was the jury aware that such a denial was made? My suspicion is that it was not. If they were aware of the denial, then they might well have decided to acquit.
Perhaps someone could look into this for this and other cases.
Many thanks to everyone who liked my previous comment about not having heroes.
Yet another exposure of how The law is so badly written that judges do not agree on how it is administered, and our justice system so reliant on bias of the presiding judge that it is unjust. Juries are mere pawns in a fixed game when two judges trying people for the same offence have the ability to rule differently on what is allowed in defence. A public trial is only a public trial when all the prosecution evidence and all the defence evidence is heard in public. My personal opinion is that the gantry protests were a public endangerment, never the less they should have all been given a fair jury trial with the same conditions of evidence.