Introduction

Sarti v R. ([2025] EWCA Crim 61) is a landmark case adjudicated by the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) on February 6, 2025. This case centers around the convictions of Chiara Sarti, Daniel Hall, and Phoebe Plummer for interfering with key national infrastructure under Section 7 of the Public Order Act 2023 (POA 2023). The offenses occurred during a protest organized by Just Stop Oil (JSO), a group advocating against fossil fuel usage. The appellants challenged their convictions on grounds related to the compatibility of the offense with Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which protect the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal the convictions of the appellants, focusing primarily on whether the offense under s.7 POA 2023 inherently ensures compatibility with Articles 10 and 11 ECHR without necessitating an individualized proportionality assessment. The appellate court examined prior precedents, statutory interpretations, and the defendant's actions during the protest. Ultimately, the court upheld the original convictions, affirming that the statutory elements of s.7 POA 2023 sufficiently guarantee that any conviction under this provision is a proportionate interference with the appellants' ECHR rights. Consequently, the first ground of appeal failed, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and rendering the second ground moot.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment heavily relied on several key precedents to shape its legal reasoning:

• In re Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) (Northern Ireland) Bill [2022] UKSC 32; This case provided a framework for determining proportionality in public order offenses, emphasizing that certain statutory provisions can inherently ensure proportional interference with ECHR rights.
• Director of Public Prosecutions v Ziegler [2021] UKHL 23; Ziegler dealt with wilful obstruction of highways and highlighted that not all obstructions necessarily imply disproportionate interference with freedom of assembly.
• Cuciurean v Crown Prosecution Service [2022] EWHC 736 (Admin); This case further clarified the application of proportionality assessments in public order offenses.
• R v Jones [1999] 2 AC 240; Established that protesting on a highway does not inherently exceed acceptable limits unless it infringes on the rights of others.
• Animal Defenders International v United Kingdom (2013) 57 EHRR 21; Highlighted the importance of balance and margin of appreciation in assessing restrictions on rights.

Legal Reasoning

The court meticulously dissected the statutory language of s.7 POA 2023, emphasizing that the offense specifically targets interference with "key national infrastructure." By defining "road transport infrastructure" to include A and B roads and special roads (like motorways), the legislation provides clear boundaries within which the offense applies. The court reasoned that:

• The statutory elements—intent or recklessness regarding interference with infrastructure—are sufficiently robust to ensure that any resulting conviction aligns with ECHR requirements.
• There is no necessity for an individualized proportionality assessment because the offense's structure inherently balances the protection of public infrastructure with the right to peaceful assembly.
• The inclusion of a broad "reasonable excuse" defense does not mandate courts to perform separate proportionality evaluations unless explicitly required by the statutory framework.

By referencing Abortion Services, the court underscored that when statutory provisions are crafted with specific intent and clear definitions, they can inherently satisfy proportionality requirements without the need for additional assessments on a case-by-case basis.

Impact

This judgment sets a significant precedent in public order law by clarifying that certain statutory offenses, when meticulously defined, can inherently balance governmental interests with individual ECHR rights. Specifically:

• Certainty in Enforcement: Law enforcement and the judiciary can apply s.7 POA 2023 with confidence that its provisions are proportionate, reducing ambiguities in prosecutorial discretion.
• Protection of National Infrastructure: Reinforces the government's ability to safeguard essential services and infrastructure from disruptive acts without infringing upon fundamental human rights.
• Framework for Future Legislation: Serves as a model for drafting future public order laws, ensuring that they are in harmony with human rights obligations.
• Judicial Efficiency: Eliminates the need for courts to engage in extensive proportionality assessments for offenses that are well-defined and inherently balanced.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Proportionality Assessment

In human rights law, a proportionality assessment determines whether a government's interference with a fundamental right is justified. It involves evaluating whether the means used to achieve a legitimate aim are appropriate and necessary.

Key National Infrastructure

This refers to essential services and enterprises that are critical to the functioning of society and the economy. In the context of this case, it includes major roads like A and B roads and motorways, which are vital for transportation and logistics.

Reasonable Excuse Defense

A legal defense wherein the defendant justifies their actions by demonstrating that they had a valid reason that would be considered acceptable under the law. In s.7 POA 2023, this could involve showing that the interference with infrastructure was proportionate to their aims.

Margin of Appreciation

A doctrine in human rights law allowing states a degree of discretion in how they implement certain rights, recognizing that domestic authorities are better placed to assess local needs and priorities.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal's decision in Sarti v R. solidifies the standing of s.7 POA 2023 as a proportionate measure in regulating public protests that interfere with key national infrastructure. By affirming that the statutory elements themselves ensure compatibility with ECHR rights, the court has provided clarity and certainty in the enforcement of public order laws. This judgment not only reinforces the state's authority to protect essential services but also delineates the boundaries within which peaceful assembly can occur without infringing upon the rights of others. Moving forward, this case serves as a pivotal reference point for both legislative drafting and judicial interpretation in balancing public order with fundamental human rights.