R v Hallam & Ors [2025] EWCA Crim 199.
The Court of Appeal reduced sentences for five Just Stop Oil activists who were convicted of conspiracy to cause public nuisance by blocking the M25 motorway. The Lady Chief Justice ruled that the trial judge was wrong not to take into account the protestors’ conscientious motivation in passing sentence.
The case reasserted the importance of conscientious motivation in the sentencing of defendants for acts of civil disobedience, which should be considered even in cases where the level of disruption was high. The Court also confirmed that the protestors’ rights under Articles 10 and 11 remained engaged even where the acts involved trespass or minor damage to a cultural artifact. The Court of Appeal also ruled that the trial judge failed to give appropriate weight to immaturity as a factor in sentencing young persons.
The case was heard as a conjoined appeal in relation to four different Just Stop Oil cases. Owen Greenhall prepared grounds of appeal common to all cases in the joint appeal. He also acted for all five appellants in the M25 conspiracy case, including Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil co-founder Roger Hallam. Sentences were reduced for all the appellants in the M25 conspiracy case. Owen was instructed by Raj Chada of Hodge, Jones and Allen Solicitors who also appeared as an advocate for co-appellants. Other advocates representing co-appellants were Brenda Campbell KC (Garden Court door tenant), Jacob Bindman, Robbie Stern, Rosalind Comyn, John Briant, Francesca Cociani and Laura O’Brien. Alex Goodman KC and Jessica Jones represented Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace who intervened in the case.
The case has received widespread media attention, including BBC News, The Independent, The Guardian and Financial Times (paywall).
Wolverhampton City Council and others (Respondents) v London Gypsies and Travellers and others (Appellants) [2023] UKSC 47 On appeal from [2022] EWCA Civ 13’.
The Supreme Court ruled that wide injunctions have a negative impact on Gypsies’ and Travellers’ ability to pursue a nomadic way of life. Marc Willers KC, Tessa Buchanan and Owen Greenhall, of the Garden Court Chambers Romani Gypsy and Traveller Rights Team, represented London Gypsies and Travellers (LGT), Friends Families and Travellers (FFT) and the Derbyshire Gypsy Liaison Group (DGLG), with Richard Drabble KC of Landmark Chambers. They were instructed by Chris Johnson of Community Law Partnership (CLP). Stephanie Harrison KC, Stephen Clark and Fatima Jichi, of the Garden Court Chambers Protest Rights Team, represented Friends of the Earth (FoE,) interveners in the case, instructed by Hodge Jones & Allen and in-house legal specialists. Human Rights organisation Liberty also intervened in the case.
Between 2015 and 2020 numerous local authorities had obtained wide injunctions against persons unknown prohibiting unauthorised camping on public land in their localities – some going so far as to prohibit camping on all public land in their boroughs and districts. In the case of Bromley London Borough Council v Persons Unknown [2020] EWCA Civ 12, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the High Court to refuse a borough wide injunction and laid down guidance on the steps that a local authority should take before seeking such an injunction, making the point that such an injunction should only be sought as a last resort.
Following that decision the High Court reviewed wide injunctions that had been obtained by other local authorities, discharging a number of them. The local authorities appealed against the decision and the Court of Appeal allowed their appeal having concluded that final injunctions could, as a matter of principle, be granted against newcomers. London Gypsies and Travellers (LGT), Friends Families and Travellers (FFT) and the Derbyshire Gypsy Liaison Group (DGLG) had been granted permission to intervene in the proceedings before the High Court and the Court of Appeal. They were then granted permission to appeal to the Supreme Court against the decision of the Court of Appeal on the question whether final injunctions could be granted against newcomers.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal having concluded that injunctions, whether described as interim or final, could, as a matter of principle, be granted against newcomers but for different reasons than those given by the Court of Appeal. However, importantly, the Supreme Court recognised the effect that such injunctions had upon the ability of Gypsies and Travellers to live their traditional nomadic way of life, not least because of the continuing lack of caravan site provision [paras 74-78]. The Supreme Court also noted the Court of Appeal’s decision in the Bromley case [para 90-95] and the guidance that it gave on the approach to be adopted by a local authority seeking a wide injunction and a Court determining such an application.
Significantly, when LGT, FFT and DGLG were granted permission to appeal they were also granted protective costs order (PCO) by the Supreme Court. The grant of a PCO is a novel feature of the case and potentially creates a blueprint for other charities seeking to take part in future newcomer injunction proceedings.
Click here to read the judgment.
