Introduction

Roberts & Ors v Regina [2018] EWCA Crim 2739 is a pivotal case adjudicated by the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) on December 6, 2018. This case revolves around the conviction of three appellants—Mr. Blevins, Mr. Roberts, and Mr. Loizou—charged with public nuisance under common law for their participation in a prolonged protest against hydraulic fracturing (fracking) activities authorized by Cuadrilla by the Oil and Gas Authority.

The appellants engaged in civil disobedience by occupying the cabs of lorries transporting drilling equipment near Blackpool over several days, effectively blocking a major roadway (A583). This action caused substantial disruption to thousands of commuters and local businesses. Initially sentenced to imprisonment, the appellants appealed against their sentences, arguing that immediate custody was excessive and violated their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeals against the custodial sentences imposed by the Crown Court. The appellate court determined that the immediate custodial sentences were manifestly excessive given the circumstances of the case. Instead of imprisonment, the court suggested that a community order with unpaid work would have been appropriate. However, considering the appellants had already served a significant time in custody, the court ultimately imposed a conditional discharge for two years. This discharge means the appellants remain liable to be resentenced if they commit any further offenses within the stipulated period.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references previous legal precedents to contextualize and support its decision:

• R v Rimmingtan [2006] 1 AC 459: Defined the boundaries of public nuisance, emphasizing acts that obstruct public rights.
• Porter v Magill [2002] 2 AC 359: Outlined the test for apparent bias, focusing on the perspective of a fair-minded observer.
• Locabail (UK) Ltd v Bayfield Properties Ltd [2000] QB 451: Discussed the necessity of exploring a judge's awareness to rule out bias.
• R v Jones (Margaret) [2007] 1 AC 161: Highlighted the traditional respect for civil disobedience and the balance between protest rights and legal consequences.
• Various cases cited by Lord Hoffmann in the Margaret Jones case, including Hutchinson v Newbury Magistrates' Court and Neldern v Crown Prosecution Service, which dealt with the proportionality of sentences in protest-related offenses.

Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning centered on balancing the right to peaceful protest with the necessity to maintain public order. Key aspects include:

• Proportionality of Sentence: The court assessed whether the severity of the sentence matched the harm caused. Given the appellants' good character and expressions of remorse, imprisonment was deemed disproportionate.
• Custody Threshold: Under Section 152 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, custody is appropriate only if the offense is so serious that no lesser sentence is justified. The court concluded that this threshold was not met.
• Conditional Discharge: Serving time in custody was considered sufficient punishment. The conditional discharge serves as a safeguard against potential future offenses without imposing additional penalties.
• Impact of Preforming Bias Claim: The appellants' fourth ground concerning judicial bias was dismissed due to insufficient evidence, reaffirming the stringent standards for proving real possibility of bias.

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for future protest-related cases:

• Sentencing Framework: Establishes that non-violent, peaceful protestors causing public nuisance may receive conditional discharges instead of custodial sentences, promoting proportionality.
• Protection of Protest Rights: Reinforces the importance of balancing civil disobedience rights with public order, aligning with ECHR provisions on freedom of expression and assembly.
• Judicial Discretion: Empowers judges to consider individual circumstances, character, and the nature of the protest when determining appropriate sentences.
• Encouragement of Responsible Protest: Signals that while peaceful protests are protected, excessive disruption can lead to legal consequences, encouraging more measured forms of dissent.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Public Nuisance: A common law offense where an individual's actions or omissions significantly interfere with the public's rights, such as obstructing a public roadway.
• Conditional Discharge: A court order where the offender is not punished immediately but remains liable to face penalties if they commit another offense within a specified period.
• Custody Threshold: The point at which the seriousness of an offense justifies imprisonment over non-custodial sentences like fines or community service.
• Apparent Bias: A situation where a judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned by a fair-minded observer, even if no actual bias exists.
• Proportionality: The principle that the punishment should fit the crime, considering factors like harm caused, intent, and the offender's background.

Conclusion

The Roberts & Ors v Regina judgment underscores the judiciary's commitment to ensuring that sentencing in protest-related cases is fair, proportionate, and respects fundamental human rights. By replacing immediate custodial sentences with conditional discharges, the court acknowledged the legitimacy of peaceful protest while emphasizing the need to prevent excessive public disruption. This decision not only aligns with established legal principles but also sets a meaningful precedent for handling similar cases in the future, promoting a balanced approach that upholds both civil liberties and public order.