R v Sarti 2025
A number of activists, including S, H and P, had engaged in a protest that had been organised by “Just Stop Oil” against the use of fossil fuels. The protesters walked very slowly in a procession large enough to block the road – some protesters were carrying banners and others were distributing leaflets. Police observed significant disruption and frustration amongst motorists. Warnings given to the protesters by the police to leave the road went unheeded. S, H and P were walking towards the rear of the procession and when they were arrested.
At trial, the judge ruled:
(i) that the question whether the conviction would amount to a proportionate interference with the appellants' rights under Article 10 and Article 11 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) was for him and not the jury to determine;
(ii) that the conviction of any of the appellants would not be incompatible with their rights under the ECHR; and
(iii) that the "reasonable excuse" defence did not arise on the facts and would not be left to the jury.
(ii) that the conviction of any of the appellants would not be incompatible with their rights under the ECHR; and
(iii) that the "reasonable excuse" defence did not arise on the facts and would not be left to the jury.
S, H and P were convicted of interfering with key national infrastructure contrary to section 7 of the Public Order Act 2023.
S, H and P appealed against their convictions on the following grounds:
- The judge erred in concluding that the ingredients of the section 7 offence were sufficient in themselves to ensure that any conviction will be compatible with Article 10 and Article 11 of the ECHR.
- The second ground only arises if the first succeeds, the judge erred in concluding that he could decide the issue of proportionality himself and in concluding that the convictions were proportionate interferences with the applicants' Article 10 and 11 rights.
Held
Appeal dismissed. Conviction upheld.
The court is required to ask three questions in a protest-related case where Articles 9, 10 or 11 are relied upon:
(i) Whether the relevant Convention rights were engaged? (They will not be so if the conduct involves violent intentions, or incites violence, or otherwise rejects the foundations of a democratic society, or if Article 17 of the Convention applies).
(ii) If Convention rights were engaged, whether the ingredients of the offence struck the proportionality balance themselves?
(iii) If the answer to question two was that they did not, then the third question was whether there was a means by which proportionality can be ensured? (In the case of statutory offences, a defence of lawful or reasonable excuse may provide a route, if necessary with the help of section 3 of the Human Rights Act).
(ii) If Convention rights were engaged, whether the ingredients of the offence struck the proportionality balance themselves?
(iii) If the answer to question two was that they did not, then the third question was whether there was a means by which proportionality can be ensured? (In the case of statutory offences, a defence of lawful or reasonable excuse may provide a route, if necessary with the help of section 3 of the Human Rights Act).
The conduct criminalised under section 7 of the POA 2003 does not fall outside of the protection of Article 9, 10 and 11, i.e. the relevant convention rights. The offence is prescribed by law and aims to prevent disorder or crime and protect the rights and freedoms of others. There is no dispute that these aims justify the interference with a fundamental rights of expression and assembly.
The issue is whether the offence strikes a fair balance between the interests of individuals caught by it and the interests of the community. The offence under section 7 only restricts the acts of protest which would significantly delay the use of the road by others on A, B and special roads. It continues to allow protests to be conducted on certain highways, other public land and on the side of the road. Protests may also be carried out on the stated highways by lawfully notification of the protest which allows police to impose conditions capable of mitigating the disruptive effect on others. Acting in accordance with any conditions would allow the participants a defence under section 7(2) of the Act. Parliament was entitled to consider that legal certainty was promoted by identifying the roads on which acts causing significant delay would give rise to the offence by reference to a well-established classification system. It is not considered that Parliament exceeded the relatively broad margin of appreciation open to it by extending the scope of the offence to all A and B roads, as well as special roads.
Once an offence under section 7 has been made out, section 7(2)(a) did not require a court to consider whether a conviction would be a proportionate interference with the Article 10 or 11 rights.
Given that ground 1 failed, the second ground of appeal did not arise.
View the full case document here, with links to related legislation and similar cases.
