UK study advocates for protester motives in trials

Academics in the UK are calling for a change in how non-violent protesters are treated in court. They argue that these defendants should be allowed to explain their reasons for protesting without having to show remorse or abandon their beliefs. This new approach challenges the current system, where protesters often face harsher punishments if they do not separate themselves from their motives. Dr. Graeme Hayes from Aston University, one of the study’s authors, explained that the pressure on protesters can create an unfair situation. He believes that juries, not judges, should decide if a protester’s actions were justified. The study highlights that recent court decisions have made it harder for protesters to present their cases and to receive fair treatment. The researchers point out that the justice system has become stricter, especially regarding sentencing for protest actions. Last week, the Court of Appeal upheld long prison sentences for 10 climate activists, even though six sentences were slightly reduced. They note that in many cases, defendants are restricted from explaining their actions, which limits their ability to mount a proper defense. The study suggests a new "integrity principle" that would respect a protester’s moral beliefs and allow them to justify their actions legally. This principle could change court procedures and help protect the right to protest. An example mentioned was the Colston Four trial in Bristol, where the defendants were allowed to discuss their motivations and were ultimately acquitted. The findings have drawn both support and criticism. Jolyon Maugham, director of the Good Law Project, praised the study for connecting morality and protest law. However, former Supreme Court judge Jonathan Sumption disagreed, arguing that the legal system should not endorse any one view over another in a democratic society. He emphasized the importance of arguing issues peacefully without resorting to coercion.