Rich Loizou, Richard Roberts and Simon Roscoe Blevin (front left to right) with supporters outside Preston Law Courts before the sentencing hearing. Photo: DrillOrDrop, 25 September 2018
Three men sent to jail last week for taking part in anti-fracking protests are to appeal against their sentences.
A judge at Preston Crown Court sentenced Simon Roscoe Blevins and Richard Roberts to 16 months in prison. Richard Loizou was given 15 months. DrillOrDrop report
The three men had been found guilty at trial of causing a public nuisance. They had climbed on top of the cabs of lorries delivering to Cuadrilla’s shale gas site, in a protest that lasted 99 hours. Julian Brock, a fourth man, who also took part in the protest, received a suspended jail sentence.
A spokesperson for Robert Lizar solicitors told DrillOrDrop:
“We confirm we will be lodging an appeal against sentence. We will be submitting that the sentences were wrong in principle and manifestly excessive.”
Kirsty Brimelow QC, the head of the international human rights team at Doughty St Chambers, told the Guardian she was leading the appeal on a pro bono basis:
“We are applying to the court of appeal for expedition of the appeal.
“We are fortunate in this country that there is this option. The core submission in this case was made at Preston crown court – that it is wrong to lock up peaceful protesters.”
The men’s protest, in July 2017, was thought to be the longest anti-fracking action in the UK. They are believed to be the first anti-fracking campaigners to be sent to prison for a protest.
During the sentencing hearing, Ms Brimelow said the men would be the first environmental activists to be imprisoned for the act of protest since the mass trespass on Kinder Scout in 1932. Other campaigners have been jailed for breaking court orders and injunctions.
The sentences were widely condemned after the trial. DrillOrDrop reported today that more than 1,000 academics had signed an open letter against the sentences.
Categories: Legal
DRILL OR DROP? 
Reblogged this on nearlydead.
Just when you thought your day couldn’t get better , good luck #Three
‘“Everybody knows that if you engage in non-violent civil disobedience then you’re likely to be arrested,” said Kevin Blowe, a coordinator of the Network for Police Monitoring. “But there is a precedent that has been set that follows up from the Twyford Down cases in ‘93, which is that if you’re not involved in a violent action and are acting on conscience, the courts will balance that against any disruption that may take place. So most people, if they are convicted, get a conditional discharge and a fine, they don’t go to prison.”’
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/05/fracking-activists-to-appeal-against-prison-sentences
‘“It’s pointless putting them in prison, because what this has done is turn me and his mother and the rest of the family into activists,” he said. “I was a Conservative through and through for the first 32 years of my voting life. My wife wasn’t and I didn’t listen to her and that was a mistake.”’
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/05/fracking-activists-to-appeal-against-prison-sentences
‘MPs speaking at their party conference in Birmingham voiced concerns from backbenchers and councillors who think they will lose their seats if the government pushes ahead with its plans to expand the highly controversial form of mining.’
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/fracking-conservative-mp-lose-election-drilling-lee-rowley-james-heappey-a8567101.html
You can listen to arguments from both sides but the final say is that if you break the law you are dealt with accordingly. You want to avoid jail then simply stay on the right side of the law.
Imagine this lot had any real power! Scary!
Hmmmm so the very same judge that gave a paedophile with 10000 indecent images of child porn ( all under the age of 10 ) a suspended sentence is the correct outcome – v- sitting on a lorry that caused no harm to anyone or damage to property?
[edited by moderator] what they did is called a ;awful excuse. break a small law to prevent a bigger one from being broken.
Peaceful protest is not illegal
That’s right, Dianna, peaceful protest isn’t illegal. These 3 anarchists weren’t however jailed for peaceful protest. They chose to engage in other activities, and were found guilty by a jury.
Which part of sitting on a lorry wasn’t peaceful? Please back that up with evidence of the violence you are alleging.
While you are about it can you show us where they say they are doing this because they are anarchists? Just checking it’s not another lazy smear 😉
Dork…they don’t have to label themselves to be anarchists for that to be an accurate description.
I think your grasp of the English language fails you.
Peaceful, amongst other definitions = free from disturbance/interruption/interference.
A protest that is not peaceful doesn’t necessarily mean that it is violent, although that could of course be the case. A protest that causes disruption and/or interruption and/or disturbance can be classed as not being peaceful, even though there may be no violence involved. As the lorry drivers and this business were disrupted, interrupted and disturbed from going about their normal legal business, the protest was thus not ‘peaceful’.
What was that about lazy?
I would think the part that cost over £50,000 in lost production & wages Plus the £20,000 in police costs would count as Harm to the company concerned Maybe you could have a fund raiser & compensate them.
GBK the ‘time’ needs to fit the ‘crime’. It is of no coincidence that no peaceful environmental protesters have until now been jailed since 1932 (Kinder Scout). That includes Greenham Common and other anti nuc protests since the 1960’s, green belt protesters et al. This will backfire massively. Has it stopped similar protests? – quite the opposite, it has merely encouraged more protest. People will not think ‘oh well we have given it a go’ and then walk away. Think about those arrests in 1932. Who were proved to be right? Anti-Poll Tax protesters defeated the so called Iron Lady. The ant-fracking lion is yet to roar mate. Please get used to it.
Its the Hypocrisy that gets me Whats the Betting that every single one of these protesters are heating their homes with energy derived in part if not wholey from fossil fuels.
“every single one of these protesters are heating their homes with energy derived in part if not wholey from fossil fuels.”
which are won through CONVENTIONAL hydrocarbon extraction … not unconventional hydrocarbon extraction (=Fracking) which is a wholly different and extremely toxic kettle of fish.
I guess that in this case, no police mole will be found ( for those who remember the days when protesting was about burning coal at a few discrete sites in the UK, and in the case of Ratcliffe on Soar), to give an automatic get out of trouble card.
However I would say that the probability of some reduction of sentence on appeal is very likely ( say 80% ), though not like.y to succeed should the accused break that law again.
[Typo corrected at poster’s request]
By the time the Appeal is heard, a reduction in sentence may be academic, hewes62. It is likely to end up as a token to be claimed as a victory, although that may be constrained by the Court not wanting to create a recruitment tool.
If it helps these individuals to move back into society, don’t think many would want to deny them that.
(Wonder if such Appeal could be timed to match the time it takes for the exploration companies to obtain and conduct an Appeal?) Just a thought, not serious.
Just a word of caution here, appeals can go both ways.