Case comment – Fracking and the scope for public dissent: The sentencing of The Frack Three (Richard Roberts, Simon Blevins, Richard Loizou, (Case Number T20180167)) and R v Roberts (Richard) [2018] EWCA Crim 2739
Hawkins,Joanne
Case comment – Fracking and the scope for public dissent: The sentencing of The Frack Three (Richard Roberts, Simon Blevins, Richard Loizou, (Case Number T20180167)) and R v Roberts (Richard) [2018] EWCA Crim 2739 - Vol 21, Issue 2, 2019(128-135 p.)
Peaceful protest has a long and important history in the UK. Non-violent crimes, in the course of peaceful protest do not generally impute high levels of culpability. Despite this, in September 2018, three anti-fracking protesters were sent to prison for ‘lorry surfing’. The protest caused severe disruption to travel in the area and the defendants were prosecuted for causing a public nuisance. Their sentences, (15 months for Loizou and 16 months each for both Blevins and Roberts) were designed to reflect the level of harm and culpability which the judge felt was appropriate, given the length of the disruption endured by the public (the protest totalling almost four days). On appeal, the sentences were quashed and ruled to be manifestly excessive. This commentary highlights that this case and the apparent attempt to curb peaceful protest raises a broader question about the increasingly restrictive legal framework, where scope for dissent around fracking is becoming progressively more confined.
custodial sentence,
fracking,
peaceful protest
Case comment – Fracking and the scope for public dissent: The sentencing of The Frack Three (Richard Roberts, Simon Blevins, Richard Loizou, (Case Number T20180167)) and R v Roberts (Richard) [2018] EWCA Crim 2739 - Vol 21, Issue 2, 2019(128-135 p.)
Peaceful protest has a long and important history in the UK. Non-violent crimes, in the course of peaceful protest do not generally impute high levels of culpability. Despite this, in September 2018, three anti-fracking protesters were sent to prison for ‘lorry surfing’. The protest caused severe disruption to travel in the area and the defendants were prosecuted for causing a public nuisance. Their sentences, (15 months for Loizou and 16 months each for both Blevins and Roberts) were designed to reflect the level of harm and culpability which the judge felt was appropriate, given the length of the disruption endured by the public (the protest totalling almost four days). On appeal, the sentences were quashed and ruled to be manifestly excessive. This commentary highlights that this case and the apparent attempt to curb peaceful protest raises a broader question about the increasingly restrictive legal framework, where scope for dissent around fracking is becoming progressively more confined.
custodial sentence,
fracking,
peaceful protest