New breed of political prisoner arises in Britain as anti-protest sentences rise | UK criminal justice
Britain has created a new breed of political prisoners by systematically imprisoning people who took action to prevent climate breakdown and the destruction of Gaza, a report has found.
Research by Queen Mary University of London (QMUL) and protest group Defend Our Juries says prison sentences for acts of direct action or civil disobedience were once rare, but are now increasingly imposed for longer and more frequently.
The report, due to be published on Tuesday, points to a rise in anti-protest legislation in England and Wales, a rise in police powers and civil law measures introduced by companies and public bodies, judges removing legal defences and “extraordinarily long” sentences.
In the first analysis of the imprisonment of “Britain’s new political prisoners”, researchers identified 286 cases in which climate and Palestine solidarity activists sent to prison for protest were sentenced to a total of 136 years in prison.
In the 256 cases for which data were available, the average length of detention was 28 weeks; One in three protesters was sentenced to six months or more in prison, and one in five was sentenced to more than a year.
David Whyte, co-author of the report and professor of climate justice at QMUL, said: “These are exceptional sentences used for protests that are themselves highly political.
“Therefore, excessive penalties and levels of detention [before trial] It is used to respond to an extreme category of prisoners, and that is prisoners arrested for their involvement in civil disobedience, direct action as a result of political protest. So there’s something very political going on. “Oftentimes these protesters reflect the majority rather than the minority view.”
The report describes detention as the “first line of attack,” creating a chilling effect of protest and civil disobedience. Researchers found that in 60% of cases, final sentences were less severe than time spent in custody awaiting trial. They highlight “Filton 24,” who is accused of crimes linked to a Palestine Action direct action protest held at a factory near Bristol operated by Israeli arms manufacturer Elbit Systems.
The defendant remained in jail for up to 18 months – the standard pretrial limit is six months – and all but one were released on bail after the first group of six defendants were acquitted of aggravated burglary. Two of these six were later acquitted of criminal damage. The 18 defendants who will be tried in connection with the events in Filton still face other charges.
Contempt of court without a jury trial was found to account for 40% of prison sentences. Charges of insubordination arise from the defendant’s behavior in the courtroom, including violating a judge’s order (8% of total prison cases) or violating an injunction taken by a private company or public authority to prevent protest (32% of cases).
Whyte said: “The real danger is that you criminalize people for breaching what is actually a civil injunction. So it doesn’t start out as a criminal offense but it ends up being a criminal sentence and that’s very worrying because it means that private companies are, in effect, imposing injunctions that lead to large numbers of people going to jail.”
The report revealed 69 people were jailed, including some for carrying banners, after Warwickshire county council won an injunction from the high court in 2022 in response to Just Stop Oil’s direct action campaign at the Kingsbury oil terminal.
A judiciary spokesman said: “The independence and impartiality of the judiciary is fundamental to the rule of law. Once in office, judges take the judicial oath, swearing to act ‘without fear, favour, affection or ill will’. In all cases, judges decide on the evidence and arguments presented to them and apply the law as it stands.”
“Judges and magistrates impose sentences according to the law established by parliament and sentencing guidelines established by the independent Sentencing Council, as well as the facts of each case, which may have aggravating or mitigating factors.”
