A court has acknowledged that climate activists acted out of a sense of sacrifice, highlighting their motivations in the fight against climate change.

This perspective reflects a growing understanding of the moral and ethical dimensions behind civil disobedience in addressing urgent environmental issues, suggesting that their actions are grounded in a profound commitment to future generations and the planet’s wellbeing.

The Court of Appeal has been presented with arguments suggesting that climate change activists, who received sentences of up to five years for their participation in demonstrations, acted out of a sense of sacrifice for a greater cause and should therefore have their penalties reconsidered and potentially reduced.

Actions by Just Stop Oil (JSO) protesters aimed to bring attention to the UK’s reliance on fossil fuels and the need for urgent action to address climate change. The protests, which involved unconventional methods such as climbing on highways and throwing soup at Vincent van Gogh‘s Sunflowers painting, were designed to be attention-grabbing and disrupt daily life, highlighting the desperation and urgency felt by protesters over the government’s inaction on climate change.

The defendants’ lawyers argued that the sentences violate human rights, while the Crown Prosecution Service is defending the sentences, arguing that they were not legally incorrect. Danny Friedman KC, representing the group, expressed concerns over some sentences being among the highest in modern British history, warning that if upheld, they could signify a significant shift in criminal law sentencing practices.

Mr Friedman said: “What these applicants did by way of collective, non-violent protest, whether one likes it or not, was for the interests of the public, of the planet, and of future generations.”

“They did what they did out of sacrifice,” he added.

Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace UK are backing an appeal against certain sentences they believe undermine democratic principles, emphasizing the vital importance of preserving freedom of expression and the right to protest in a functioning democracy.

The barristers for the CPS contended that the sentences imposed were legally sound and not excessively harsh, asserting that a more lenient approach would fail to deter activists from escalating their disruptive actions, and emphasizing the necessity of deterrence to safeguard public order.