Sarti v R.

Factual and Procedural Background

On 15 May 2024, following a six-day trial at the Crown Court at Southwark before Judge Hehir and a jury, the applicants—referred to here as Appellant 1, Appellant 2, and Appellant 3—were convicted of interfering with key national infrastructure contrary to section 7 of the Public Order Act 2023 (POA 2023). The offences arose from a protest organised by an environmental activist group campaigning against fossil fuels.

On 27 September 2024, Appellant 1 and Appellant 2 were each sentenced to a 12-month community order with 100 hours of unpaid work; Appellant 1 also received a 15-day rehabilitation requirement. Appellant 3 received a 27-month prison sentence for two offences: criminal damage and the section 7 offence, with respective terms of 24 and 3 months.

The appellants sought leave to appeal their convictions on two grounds: first, that the trial judge erred in holding that the offence’s elements alone ensure compatibility with Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR); second, that the judge erred in deciding proportionality himself and in concluding the convictions were proportionate interferences with their Article 10 and 11 rights. The Registrar referred the applications to the full court, which granted leave.

The protest involved the appellants and others walking slowly and blocking major roads in West London, causing significant disruption and frustration among motorists. Police warnings to disperse were ignored, leading to arrests. Video evidence showed the protest’s scale, the police’s attempts to manage it, and the resulting traffic delays. The protest lasted over an hour, after which the road was reopened and remaining protesters were removed.

The trial commenced on 8 May 2024. The judge ruled that the question of whether the conviction amounted to a proportionate interference with the appellants’ Convention rights was for the judge, not the jury, to decide; that any conviction would not be incompatible with those rights; and that the defence of reasonable excuse was not applicable on the facts and would not be left to the jury. The appellants were convicted accordingly.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the ingredients of the section 7 offence under the Public Order Act 2023 are sufficient in themselves to ensure that any conviction will be compatible with Articles 10 and 11 ECHR.
2. Conditional on the first issue, whether the trial judge erred in concluding that he could decide the issue of proportionality himself and that the convictions were proportionate interferences with the appellants’ Article 10 and 11 rights.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants' Arguments

• Section 7(2) of the POA 2023 provides a defence of reasonable excuse without express limitation, implying Parliament intended to allow a defence of proportionate protest.
• If Parliament intended to exclude proportionality from the defence, it could have expressly done so.
• The offence’s scope is broad, covering all A and B roads, with mere recklessness sufficient for mens rea and a maximum 12-month prison sentence, making it materially similar to the offence in Ziegler.
• The trial judge erred in concluding that satisfaction of the offence elements alone ensures proportionality of conviction.

Crown's Arguments

• Parliament struck the proportionality balance legislatively in section 7, responding to a pressing social need to protect key national infrastructure.
• The offence requires proof of intention or recklessness to interfere, which is more stringent than strict liability offences such as in Abortion Services.
• It would be surprising if Parliament intended that disruptive protest could constitute a defence to the offence.
• The offence limits where and how rights under Articles 10 and 11 may be exercised but does not prevent their exercise entirely, akin to the offence in Abortion Services.
• The appellants’ reliance on ministerial statements and the decision in Ziegler is misplaced, as the latter has been undermined by subsequent Supreme Court analysis.
• The offence aligns with the established balance between freedom of expression and protection of others’ rights, criminalising only serious disruption beyond legitimate protest.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court applied the structured approach from Abortion Services to determine compatibility of the s. 7 offence with Articles 10 and 11 ECHR. First, it found that the offence engages Convention rights, as the conduct may be peaceful protest without violent intent, consistent with the Strasbourg decision in Kudrevicius. Second, the court considered whether the offence’s ingredients themselves strike the proportionality balance.

The court noted that the offence applies only to interference with "key national infrastructure," including certain major roads (special roads and A and B roads), and requires proof that the act significantly delays or prevents the use of such infrastructure, with intent or recklessness. The offence’s scope is therefore narrower than the s. 137 offence considered in Ziegler, which applies to all highways.

The court emphasised that the statutory framework, including the Public Order Act 1986’s provisions for notified processions and police-imposed conditions, provides mechanisms to balance protest rights with public interests. The offence does not criminalise peaceful protest generally but targets serious disruption on essential infrastructure.

Given these features, the court concluded that the offence’s ingredients guarantee that any conviction will be a proportionate interference with Convention rights. Thus, the defence of reasonable excuse under s. 7(2)(a) does not require an individualised proportionality assessment by the court in each case. This reasoning aligns with the principle that certain legislative measures can ensure proportionality without fact-specific inquiries, as established in Animal Defenders International and Kablis.

The court rejected the appellants’ reliance on Ziegler as it involved a broader offence and a different statutory context, and held that the trial judge was correct to decide proportionality himself and to exclude the reasonable excuse defence on the facts.

Holding and Implications

The appeal is DISMISSED.

The court held that the ingredients of the section 7 offence under the Public Order Act 2023 are sufficient to ensure that any conviction will be compatible with the appellants’ rights under Articles 10 and 11 of the ECHR. Consequently, no individualised proportionality assessment is required beyond establishing the offence’s elements. The trial judge correctly ruled on proportionality and the application of the reasonable excuse defence.

The direct effect is that the appellants’ convictions and sentences stand. The court did not establish any new legal precedent but affirmed the legislative balance struck by Parliament between protest rights and protection of key national infrastructure.