Extinction Rebellion founder jailed for five years!

Rosie51 the protesters at the oil terminal I mentioned earlier were trying to stop the tankers leaving for their deliveries.
All the supermarkets have tankers based here, so that would have had widespread consequences.

I drove by this afternoon and took this photo.
There is now a high court injunction in place with the warning that protesters may face a prison sentence.

Sorry, forgot link.
www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/R-v-Hallam-and-others.pdf

Here are the judge’s sentencing comments. After reading the detail of the offences, the consequences of the defendants’ actions and their criminal histories, does anyone here still think the sentences were too harsh?

Thank you to the ladies who have given me the correct form of the past tense of the verb to plead. I thought it was pleaded, but we do hear pled, and to my ears, both sound a bit odd.
And thank you Wyllow for giving us the offences that the defendants were charged with in both instances. As I thought, the offences were different and therefore attract different sentences.

Yes. They are armed and you don’t mess with them.

My take on last night? If it’s too dangerous for the police and the fire service to go in then there’s only one option. The army needs to go in.

Pleaded. I hate ‘pled’, it’s an Americanism.

maddyone

Is it pleaded or pled?
Neither sounds right to me.

Pleaded, at a guess.
It would make them miserable little pleaders.

25Avalon

So how come protestors broke the law throwing Colston’s statue in Bristol’s floating harbour but were allowed to use climate change as mitigating circumstances? And you could say it was planned as they came with grappling hooks and ropes. The law needs to be consistent.

The Colston Statue was criminal damage and the defence mounted related to the particular incident.

The Just Oil activists were charged and convicted of conspiracy to cause public nuisance.

pleaded in UK, certainly.
pled in USA.
but it's easier to say,
did they plead guilty or not guilty.

I also think Starmer has enough to be getting on with. I’m hoping to see improvements in the NHS as I’m waiting for spinal surgery and live with daily pain, so that is a very important issue for me.
Starmer may very well be relieved that these organisers will be out of action for a bit and give him time to attend to other issues.

vegansrock

The previous government changed the law so the defendants could not put their defence to the jury. That could be reversed for a start.

i don't understand this.
what do you mean the defendants could not put their defence to the jury ?
they are represented by counsel who will certainly put the defence case.
do you mean mitigation, or the defendants directly addressing the jury ?

Is it pleaded or pled?
Neither sounds right to me.

I think we’d have to know the exact crime they all charged with, whether or not they pleaded guilty, if there were previous offences, and if there were any mitigating factors.

I do believe that was a different kind of crime. Was it criminal damage? It didn’t cost millions like this one did

So how come protestors broke the law throwing Colston’s statue in Bristol’s floating harbour but were allowed to use climate change as mitigating circumstances? And you could say it was planned as they came with grappling hooks and ropes. The law needs to be consistent.

Go Maddyone - our Judges are chosen from people with vast experience of the law and because of their skills and knowledge.
GSM is correct, they can and almost certainly will appeal their sentences.
Ive confidence Starmer has enough to be getting on with

Starmer wants to reduce the number of people in prison.

He will have to set up his own government’s rules, issue new sentencing guidelines and communicate those to the judges.

Undoubtedly any changes will be popular or unpopular, depending on the POV of those who read them and those who are affected by them.

The Judges will still have to do as maddyone says above.
Judges hear evidence or accept a guilty plea, and if found guilty, they sentence the defendant appropriately according to sentencing guidelines.

vegansrock

The previous government changed the law so the defendants could not put their defence to the jury. That could be reversed for a start.

Well that’s as maybe, judges deal with the law as it is, not as as you wish it is. Judges can’t say that in their opinion the law should be a, b, or c. Judges hear evidence or accept a guilty plea, and if found guilty, they sentence the defendant appropriately according to sentencing guidelines.

Oreo apologies - I misinterpreted your interpretation of my post. Must stop trying to multi task🙈

And needlessly is your opinion

Yes Oreo it is my opinion.

Not sure why it’s ’needless’ Last time I looked anyone’s options were needed - even those that are at odds with your own.

The previous government changed the law so the defendants could not put their defence to the jury. That could be reversed for a start.

When many people protest against a particular sentence that has been set by the judge, it can descend into a sort of mob rule. We are not qualified to make judgments that’s why we’re not judges because judges receive training and know the law, so that it can be administered fairly and properly. It doesn’t matter if some of us feel that it’s a just cause so the perpetrators shouldn’t go to prison, what matters is that these people broke the law, they have been charged, found guilty, and received the sentence that the judge deemed appropriate, after due consideration.

They won't serve five years anyway, will they?
Perhaps tagging might have been an option, but then that must come at a cost, if it's used properly.

Those convicted can always appeal their sentences. No reason for the AG to get involved.