000 01795nam a2200205 4500
999 _c11313
_d11313
003 OSt
005 20210217161025.0
007 cr aa aaaaa
008 210217b ||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
100 _aHawkins,Joanne
_943488
245 _aCase 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
300 _aVol 21, Issue 2, 2019(128-135 p.)
520 _aPeaceful 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.
650 _acustodial sentence,
_943489
650 _a fracking,
_943490
650 _apeaceful protest
_943491
773 0 _011304
_915506
_dSage, 2019.
_tEnvironmental law review
856 _uhttps://doi.org/10.1177/1461452919842434
942 _2ddc
_cART