Just Stop Oil Protesters Convicted Amid Climate Defence Row

Published: 05 November 2025. The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online.

Six Just Stop Oil (JSO) protesters have been convicted after they were denied the opportunity to present climate facts or a “reasonable excuse” defence in court, raising questions about consistency in the UK’s handling of environmental demonstrations. The activists were found guilty of public nuisance following a high-profile protest on the M25 motorway in 2022, which saw them climbing gantries to demand an end to new fossil fuel projects.

The trial took place over eight days at Southwark Crown Court in London. Public nuisance carries a maximum sentence of 10 years, and the convicted protesters will be sentenced next month. The case has attracted significant attention because it contrasts sharply with the outcomes of similar protests carried out by other JSO activists.

Just weeks earlier, three other protesters who participated in the same M25 demonstration were acquitted at Guildford Crown Court. The judge there allowed them to present a defence of reasonable excuse and permitted the inclusion of 12 climate facts agreed upon by both prosecution and defence. These facts were undisputed and presented to the jury, giving the activists a legal framework to argue their case.

The disparity between the two rulings has sparked criticism from campaigners and legal experts. Adelheid Russenberger, a history PhD student from London and one of those convicted at Southwark, highlighted the differences in how the courts treated the cases. “It was just a complete disparity in how the judges treated the case and, to an extent, how the prosecutors dealt with them,” she said. “One previous prosecutor was happy to accept some agreed facts regarding climate and the other wasn’t.”

The convictions follow the introduction of the statutory offence of public nuisance under the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act (PCSCA), which has faced widespread criticism for its impact on the right to protest. Section 78 of the Act allows for a defence of reasonable excuse, but Judge Perrins at Southwark refused to allow Russenberger and her co-defendants to advance this defence before the jury. He ruled that “the subjective belief of each defendant that their conduct was justified as an act of protest cannot afford them a reasonable excuse under the terms of the act for their subsequent actions.”

Raj Chada, head of criminal defence at Hodge, Jones and Allen, represented some of the protesters and expressed concern over the inconsistency in court decisions. “There is an inconsistency and the UK courts are wrongly, in my view, not always allowing reasonable excuse to be used and failing to give adequate protection to your right to free speech,” he said.

The six convicted protesters—Russenberger, Andrew Dames, Cosmo Cattell, Jane Touil, Clara O’Callaghan, and Michael Dunk—took part in the M25 protest on 8 November 2022, which lasted four days. In contrast, Isabel Rock, Sam Holland, and Rachel Payne, acquitted at Guildford Crown Court, participated the following day. The differences in sentencing have reignited debates over judicial discretion and the application of protest laws.

Mel Carrington, a spokesperson for JSO, criticised the convictions and said that denying juries the right to assess whether the activists’ actions were justified undermines democracy. “[Judges who] deny juries their right to determine whether or not our actions were justified are not protecting the public. They are acting anti-democratically and immorally,” she said.

Liberty, the human rights advocacy group, called on the government to review its anti-protest legislation. Ruth Ehrlich, head of policy and campaigns at Liberty, said: “The government must review its anti-protest laws in light of the mounting evidence they aren’t fit for purpose.”

The Crown Prosecution Service has been approached for comment, while a spokesperson for judges in England and Wales emphasised the importance of judicial independence. “Judicial independence and impartiality are fundamental to the rule of law. In each case, judges make decisions based on the evidence and arguments presented to them and apply the law as it stands,” the spokesperson said.

The ruling comes at a time when climate activism is under scrutiny in the UK. Just Stop Oil gained national attention for high-profile demonstrations, often targeting major roads and fossil fuel infrastructure. Their campaigns have been controversial, but they have also drawn attention to the urgency of climate change and the government’s role in regulating fossil fuel projects.

The convicted protesters’ trial has sparked debate over whether courts are treating climate-related actions consistently. Legal experts point out that while the law allows for a reasonable excuse defence, judges retain discretion over whether it can be presented to juries. In these cases, similar actions produced dramatically different legal outcomes, raising concerns about fairness and proportionality.

JSO has said it will continue to campaign for climate action despite the convictions. The group announced earlier this year that it would end its civil resistance campaign after the government adopted its demand to halt new oil and gas projects, demonstrating a partial success for its activism.

While the convictions have legal implications for the individuals involved, they also carry broader political significance. The cases highlight tensions between the right to protest and public nuisance legislation, as well as the challenges courts face in balancing free speech with public order.

Public reaction to the trial has been divided. Supporters of climate action argue that criminalising peaceful protest undermines democracy and freedom of expression. Critics say that the disruption caused by blockades and gantry climbs poses safety risks and inconvenience to the public, justifying legal consequences.

Russenberger and her co-defendants now face sentencing, which will determine whether custodial or alternative penalties will be applied. Observers note that sentencing decisions may influence how future climate protests are approached legally and politically in the UK.

The PCSCA legislation remains contentious. Critics argue that the law could deter lawful protest and limit political expression, particularly for movements advocating urgent social or environmental change. The law’s application in these cases has become a touchstone for wider debates about civil liberties, judicial discretion, and climate activism.

Legal scholars point to the need for clarity in the law. Raj Chada warned that inconsistent application of the reasonable excuse defence risks eroding confidence in the legal system. “It is crucial for the courts to ensure that the law is applied consistently. Otherwise, individuals engaging in legitimate protest may be unfairly penalised,” he said.

The contrast between the Southwark and Guildford verdicts demonstrates that similar actions can lead to markedly different outcomes depending on judicial interpretation and prosecutorial approach. This has prompted calls for reform, as activists, legal experts, and human rights groups argue for more predictable and equitable treatment of climate-related protest cases.

As the UK continues to grapple with climate policy and public engagement, the case underscores the ongoing tension between environmental activism and legal constraints. It raises fundamental questions about the extent to which citizens can challenge government policy and corporate practices without facing disproportionate legal consequences.

The next sentencing hearing will be closely watched by campaigners, lawyers, and policymakers. Many expect it to set a precedent for how climate protests are handled and to influence the future of civil disobedience campaigns across the country.