Climate activists in the UK are increasingly concerned that delays in their court cases may result in losing the right to a jury trial, which they view as more sympathetic to their cause. Many defendants, facing charges for protests dating back to 2021, have experienced repeated postponements and worry that by the time their cases are heard, government proposals limiting jury trials will be in force.
Jury trials and the right to acquit
Juries have an absolute right to acquit based on their conscience, a principle that activists believe is crucial for fair trials. The government has proposed removing the right for defendants accused of either-way offences to choose between trial in a crown court before a jury or in a magistrates court. These changes are expected to take effect in 2028 and will apply retrospectively to cases already in the system.
Among those potentially affected are dozens of individuals charged under the Public Order Act with “interference with key national infrastructure” related to Just Stop Oil slow march protests in 2023. Adem Ay, 45, from Hackney Wick in east London, is facing trial in July next year. He stated: “I feel like speaking to people [jurors], who can essentially do a smell test of whether this is fair or not, is my only hope because there are so many restrictions happening with how much we can talk about our motivations, how much we can talk about climate change. A number of juries have found protesters innocent when there have been no legal defences available.”
Concerns over retrospective changes
Ay, who is representing himself, said he argued at Southwark crown court against delay, citing the possible loss of the right to a jury trial. He claimed the judge was sympathetic and “was surprised more people weren’t out on the streets protesting.” Dawn Gordon, 22, from Belfast, also facing trial next year for the slow marches, said: “With a jury trial, it could be that people say actually this was justified because this year we’re going to have heatwaves, it might be the hottest year on record again, and next we’ve got the super El Niño, and if I had my jury trial next year then people would have felt that.”
Under the proposed changes, even if magistrates decide a case should be tried in the crown court, it would be heard without a jury unless the court considers that the defendant is likely to receive a sentence of more than three years on conviction. This could affect Ludi Simpson, 73, from Bradford, who is due to be tried in spring next year for alleged criminal damage for throwing soup over a Vincent van Gogh painting of sunflowers in 2024, an hour after two other people were jailed for a similar protest in 2022.
Impact on defendants
Simpson commented: “Judges are not your peers as juries are. The judge will have no sympathy for the reason, the context, the situation in the world.” Amy Pritchard, 41, from London, is facing two trials next year for alleged public nuisance related to Insulate Britain protests in 2021. She said: “It’s been hanging over me for a long time. In a context of absolute loss of faith in our justice system and government, the bit of democratic power that people have to intervene in the justice system is [being] taken away.”
A Just Stop Oil spokesperson said the proposed changes “will mean that Insulate Britain and Just Stop Oil supporters with outstanding trials will lose the chance to explain their actions in front of a jury. This will mean more guilty verdicts and more prison sentences for people who took action to limit climate catastrophe by standing up to the fossil fuel death cult.”
Government response
A Ministry of Justice spokesperson responded to the defendants’ concerns, stating: “This is not true – most low-level protest offences including cases from previous Just Stop Oil protests are already heard in the magistrates courts.”
