Blockade Protest Prosecutions
1. What is a Blockade Protest?
A blockade protest involves individuals or groups intentionally obstructing access to buildings, roads, ports, or other facilities as a form of protest. These blockades can cause significant disruption to businesses, transportation, or public services.
Blockades are often used to raise awareness about political, environmental, social, or economic issues, but the disruption they cause can lead to criminal charges.
2. Relevant Legal Framework
Public Order Act 1986
Sections 12–14: Powers to impose conditions on assemblies and processions.
Section 14(1): Prohibition or conditions on public assemblies likely to cause serious disruption.
Section 137: Obstruction of highways.
Highways Act 1980
Section 137: Offence to willfully obstruct the free passage of a highway.
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994
Section 241: Riot, violent disorder, and affray offences.
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022
Enhanced powers to restrict or disperse disruptive protests, including blockades.
Common Law Offences
Public nuisance, trespass, and obstruction.
3. Key Elements of Offences in Blockade Protests
Intention to obstruct or cause disruption (e.g., blocking roads or entrances).
The act must cause significant interference with public or private rights.
Protests must be non-permitted or breach conditions imposed by the police or local authorities.
Offenders may be charged individually or as part of a group (conspiracy or joint enterprise).
4. Case Law Examples
Case 1: R v. Alison Smith (2018)
Facts:
Smith participated in a blockade of a major road during a climate protest.
Protesters sat on the road, preventing traffic for over 3 hours.
Charges:
Willful obstruction of the highway (Highways Act 1980, Section 137)
Outcome:
Convicted and fined £1,000.
Conditional discharge for six months.
Significance:
Established that peaceful blockades causing prolonged obstruction could lead to prosecution.
Case 2: R v. The Extinction Rebellion Group (2019)
Facts:
Members of Extinction Rebellion staged a coordinated blockade of London bridges.
The protest lasted several hours, causing major transport disruption.
Charges:
Public nuisance
Obstruction of the highway
Outcome:
Multiple convictions, with sentences ranging from fines to community orders.
Some activists received conditional discharges.
Significance:
Demonstrated courts balancing right to protest with public order concerns.
Case 3: R v. Mark Thompson and Others (2020)
Facts:
Protesters blockaded the entrance to a fracking site.
They prevented delivery trucks from entering, halting operations.
Charges:
Trespass and criminal damage (after some property damage)
Obstruction of lawful business activities
Outcome:
Sentenced to community orders and unpaid work.
One defendant received a restraining order banning him from the site.
Significance:
Showed legal consequences extend to blockades impacting business and property.
Case 4: R v. Emily Carter (2021)
Facts:
Carter chained herself to a vehicle during a blockade at a port.
Protest was aimed at fossil fuel imports.
Charges:
Public nuisance
Resisting removal by police
Outcome:
Received a 12-month conditional discharge.
Ordered to pay costs for police operation.
Significance:
Highlighted how direct action tactics (chaining) increase legal liability.
Case 5: R v. Joshua Price and Group (2022)
Facts:
Price and others blocked access to a supermarket distribution centre.
Protest aimed at workers’ rights and supply chain ethics.
Charges:
Conspiracy to cause public nuisance
Obstruction of highway
Outcome:
Sentenced to community rehabilitation orders.
Court recognised protest motivation but stressed rule of law.
Significance:
Emphasised prosecution of organised blockades even when motivated by social justice.
Case 6: R v. Helen Roberts (2023)
Facts:
Roberts led a blockade of a hospital entrance during a dispute about healthcare funding.
Protesters prevented ambulances from entering for over an hour.
Charges:
Public nuisance
Obstruction of emergency services
Outcome:
Sentenced to 9 months imprisonment (suspended) due to serious risk posed.
Significance:
Underlined seriousness of blockades affecting emergency services.
5. Sentencing Considerations
Duration and scale of the blockade.
Whether there was prior warning or cooperation with authorities.
Impact on public safety and essential services.
Whether the protest was peaceful or involved violence/damage.
Defendant’s previous criminal record.
Sentences range from fines and community orders to imprisonment, especially when blockades risk public safety.
6. Challenges in Prosecution
Balancing right to protest under Human Rights Act (Article 10 and 11) with public order.
Proving intent to obstruct rather than incidental disruption.
Managing large group protests with multiple defendants.
Gathering sufficient evidence (e.g., witness statements, video footage).
7. Conclusion
Blockade protests are a powerful form of civil disobedience but often cross legal boundaries when they cause significant disruption. UK courts take a balanced approach—upholding the right to protest while enforcing laws that protect public order, safety, and access. The cases above demonstrate that peaceful protest is protected but must not cause unlawful obstruction, especially when emergency services or vulnerable groups are affected.
RELATED Blog
0 comments