R v Hallam and others (Appellants)

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2025/0096

Parties

Appellant(s)

Roger Hallam, Lucia Whittaker De-Abreu, Daniel Shaw, Louise Lancaster, Cressida Gethin, Paul Sousek, Gaie Delap, Paul Bell, Theresa Higginson, Phoebe Plummer and Anna Holland

Respondent(s)

Crown Prosecution Service

Issue

Are the sentences imposed on the Appellants a disproportionate interference with their rights under Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”)?

Facts

This appeal concerns a challenge by the Appellants, who were convicted at three separate trials of criminal offences in connection with Just Stop Oil protests, to the proportionality of their sentences of immediate imprisonment. The first five Appellants (A1-A5) were convicted of conspiracy to cause public nuisance, in relation to organising a protest which involved (other) people scaling gantries over the M25 motorway between 7-10 November 2022 (the “Conspiracy Case”). A1-A5 were sentenced to imprisonment: A1 to 5 years, and A2-A5 to 4 years. The sixth to ninth Appellants (A6-A9) were charged with causing public nuisance, for climbing the M25 gantries on 9 November 2022 (the “Climbers Case”). On the second day of trial, all Appellants pleaded guilty. A6-A9 were sentenced to imprisonment: A6 & A7 to 20 months, A8 to 22 months, and A9 to 24 months. The tenth and eleventh Appellants (A10 & A11), were convicted of causing criminal damage for throwing soup over the Vincent Van Gogh painting known as “Sunflowers”, on 14 October 2022 (the “Sunflowers Case”). A10 & A11 were both sentenced to imprisonment: A10 to 24 months, and A11 to 20 months. The Court of Appeal heard all the Appellants’ (A1-A11’s) appeals against their sentences together. In summary, the Court of Appeal: (i) reduced the sentences imposed in the Conspiracy Case; but (ii) upheld the sentences imposed in the Climbers Case and Sunflowers Case (whilst slightly reducing A7’s sentence to account for time on curfew). The Appellants now appeal to the Supreme Court, arguing that their sentences are a disproportionate interference with their rights under Articles 10 and 11 ECHR.

Date of issue

11 June 2025

Case origin

PTA

Back to top