Last week, at Minshull Street crown court in Manchester, Indigo Rumbelow, a co-founder of Just Stop Oil, was sentenced to 30 months in prison for conspiring to cause a public nuisance. This case highlights a troubling trend where laws traditionally aimed at penalising environmental harm caused by corporations are now being deployed against environmental activists. The prosecution argued that Rumbelow’s actions aimed to obstruct public access at Manchester Airport, a claim she openly acknowledged, asserting that her moral obligation to fight climate change justified the disruption.
Rumbelow’s sentence comes amidst a backdrop of increasing tensions surrounding climate activism in the UK. The offence of public nuisance, which has its roots in the Criminal Law Act 1977 and the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, was once wielded primarily against companies poisoning air and water. Now, however, it poses significant risks to those advocating for climate action. Critics argue that this legal recontextualisation of public nuisance reflects a broader crackdown on dissent, particularly as protests become more urgent in the face of a climate crisis that many see as an existential threat.
Rumbelow's experience echoes that of other activists from Just Stop Oil who have faced severe penalties for non-violent protests. Recently, the Court of Appeal reviewed the cases of 16 activists who received sentences ranging from 15 months to five years for planning peaceful protests on major roads, including the M25 motorway. These high-profile cases have sparked significant public backlash and raised questions about whether such punitive measures serve the public interest or merely seek to stifle dissent. Many of the 2,000 strong supporters who rallied for these activists on the steps of the High Court described them as "political prisoners", illustrating a widespread belief that the sentences are not only excessive but also a corruption of democratic values.
Rumbelow reflects on the nature of remorse in the context of civil disobedience, arguing that it’s impossible to feel regret for actions taken in the name of a righteous cause. The judge’s insistence on remorse as a precondition for leniency has drawn criticism, particularly given historical precedents where individuals have pleaded not guilty to highlight moral objections against perceived injustices. Cases like the 1670 trial of Quakers Penn and Mead and Nelson Mandela’s Rivonia trial are cited as pivotal moments where dissenters embraced their convictions rather than conforming to legal reprisals.
The current punitive measures against climate activists might deter some; however, many scholars and social commentators argue that they risk igniting a more profound societal divide on the issue of climate action. The justice system is now questioned not only for its role in maintaining public order but for its ability to truly uphold democratic values, especially when such values seem at odds with essential environmental action. In Rumbelow’s view, the necessity of their actions stems from a moral imperative to mitigate harm, a sentiment that continues to resonate among activists committed to sparking meaningful change in the face of governmental inaction.
As Rumbelow serves her sentence in HMP Styal, she remains steadfast in her commitment to civil resistance. Her determination to study past movements and their victories speaks to a wider aspiration among climate protesters: to hold powerful entities accountable for their contributions to the climate crisis. The increasing confrontation between activists and the legal system poses critical questions about the future of civil liberties in the context of climate action, emphasising the need for a societal dialogue on the rights to protest and the urgent necessity of environmental stewardship.
📌 Reference Map:
Source: Noah Wire Services