Last week, at Minshull Street Crown Court in Manchester, I received a two-and-a-half-year prison sentence for conspiring to cause a public nuisance—a charge stemming from my involvement with Just Stop Oil, aimed at obstructing air traffic at Manchester Airport. The prosecution argued that the intent of our actions was to "obstruct the public... in the exercise or enjoyment of a right that may be exercised or enjoyed by the public at large." I fully acknowledge that I intended to cause such an obstruction, but I stand by my conviction that these actions were necessary, given the dire state of our climate crisis.

The offence of public nuisance, as defined under the Criminal Law Act 1977 and the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, was originally designed to address serious environmental harm caused by corporations. Historically, it has sought to punish those who threaten public health through pollution. Ironically, this same legal framework is now being wielded against individuals striving to safeguard the future of our planet. My sentiment echoes the feeling that the state is repurposing laws designed for environmental protection to silence those demanding change.

During my time in custody, I grappled with feelings of fear and frustration as I awaited my sentencing. In the dimly lit courtroom, the weight of the judgment became palpable as the judge, Jason MacAdam, imposed varying terms of imprisonment on my fellow activists and me—18 to 30 months, depending on individual involvement. His rationale was clear: to serve as a deterrent to those contemplating similar nonviolent resistance. While I deeply contest many aspects of the ruling, I find a certain grim agreement with the judge's recognition that I prioritised my cause above societal inconvenience.

Disrupting operations at Manchester Airport was not about causing chaos; rather, it was about making a moral statement in the face of impending disaster. We operated under the weight of scientific evidence that underscores the urgency for immediate action against climate change. When we were arrested, we carried a banner declaring "Oil Kills," and upon receiving our sentences, we raised signs proclaiming, "Billions will die." I maintain that the climate crisis is a matter of life or death, and such disruption is not only warranted but essential.

The judge's expectation that I show remorse for my acts of conscience strikes me as fundamentally misplaced. How can one feel regret for actions taken to prevent imminent harm? My defence, which sought to argue that I acted out of necessity, was dismissed by the court, and the judge's critique of my plea of not guilty separates me from others who have historically stood up for their beliefs—like Nelson Mandela and the Quakers who protested in the 17th century.

In his judgement, MacAdam suggested that it is misguided to believe that personal convictions justify breaking the law. Yet history teaches us that many social and political movements have challenged existing norms in just this way, aiming to escalate the urgency of their messages. Just Stop Oil is driven not by a desire for fanfare but by the necessity of confronting a growing existential threat. Our approach adapts to current conditions, and we do not engage in passive protests; we seek to incite a conversation about responsibility and obligation.

As I spend my time incarcerated, I am committed to the tradition of civil disobedience that acknowledges the legal consequences of its actions. I will use this period to reflect on historical acts of resistance and to understand the struggles of those who have come before us. Each day, I consider how to demand accountability from those who have perpetrated what could be termed humanity's greatest crime—inaction in the face of overwhelming evidence about climate change.

Indigo Rumbelow is a co-founder of Just Stop Oil and is currently serving her sentence at HMP Styal.

📌 Reference Map:

Source: Noah Wire Services