On Friday 29 January 2021, the Court of Appeal handed down its judgment, quashing the Stansted 15 protesters’ “extremely serious” terror-related convictions.
BACKGROUND OF CASE
On 28 March 2017, 15 protesters breached the security perimeter fence at London Stansted Airport to block the Home Office’s chartered flight, due to deport 60 migrants to Nigeria, Ghana, and Sierra Leone. The protesters locked themselves around the Boeing 767 plane, preventing it from taking off.
On 10 December 2018, in the Crown Court at Chelmsford, the protesters were convicted of “intentional disruption of services at an aerodrome” contrary to section 1(2)(b) of the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990 (The 1990 Act). The 1990 Act is mostly reserved for terror-related offences—it was passed following the Lockerbie bombing in 1988, a terrorist incident which killed 259 passengers and 11 pedestrians.
Amnesty International’s UK director, Kate Allen, stated that the protesters were “convicted of an offence which simply doesn’t fit their actions”. One of the protesters, Benjamin Smoke, also commented: “I was fighting to stop the plane deporting people to a place where they would be at risk of being killed or seriously harmed."
RIGHT TO PROTEST
The right to protest is a fundamental right, enshrined in article 11 of the European Convention of Human Rights. The ability to express dissent and challenge the state is integral to any democracy. Convicting non-violent protesters, though, is common in autocratic regimes. Recently, Egyptians that were detained for peacefully protesting against the regime were charged with “joining a terrorist group”. Sentencing non-violent protesters with serious convictions acts as a robust deterrent. This tactic is very effective in countries such as Egypt where rare protests are quelled quickly and aggressively—showcasing the country’s no-nonsense approach to criticism and acting as a warning to any future dissenters.
The UK’s conflating non-violent protest with extremely serious terror-related offences by convicting both with the same conviction is a slippery slope. Citizens that peacefully protest the government’s policies, regardless of their methods of protesting, should not feel threatened or susceptible to “extremely serious” terror-related convictions. Governments are elected to serve and represent its citizens, not to rule freely without accountability.
In the lead up to the Stansted 15 appeal, multiple UN experts urged the UK not to use terrorism-related legislation to prosecute protestors. The experts, including the UN Special Rapporteurs David Kaye and Michel Forst, commented on the case, stating “it appears that such charges were brought to deter others from taking similar peaceful direct action to defend human rights and in particular the protection of asylum seekers”.
DEPORTATION CHARTER FLIGHTS
The 15 activists that stopped the flight in March 2017 were protesting the UK government’s deportation policy. As the protesters blocked the plane, they wore tops with the slogans “Mass Deportations Kill” and “No One is Illegal”. In the UK, foreign national offenders are routinely deported by the Home Office, often en masse on charter flights.
The UK’s use of charter flights has been criticised by charities and NGOs for years. A common criticism is the Home Office’s propensity to deport individuals without fully assessing their circumstances and vulnerabilities. The criticism often comes to light when successful legal challenges thwart the Home Office’s plans to deport a certain number of migrants on charter flights. For example, in December 2020, only 13 of the scheduled 50 individuals were deported to Jamaica after legal challenges unearthed that many of the scheduled deportees were potential victims of modern slavery. Thus, rather than deportation to Jamaica, many were referred to the National Referral Mechanism—the UK’s framework for referring, identifying, and ensuring potential victims of modern slavery receive adequate support.
One of the Stansted 15 protesters, May MacKeith, stated that their “actions were justified,” as "eleven people, including survivors of trafficking, who would have been deported that night are still in the UK.”
LONG AWAITED VINDICATION
One of the protesters’ grounds of appeal was that the judge in the Crown Court misinterpreted section 1(2)(b) of the 1990 Act in the light of its international and domestic law context. The legal team submitted that this is an offence directed to serious violence, often of a terrorist nature, and not the much lower level of risks generated by the actions of the protesters. The judgment stated that research revealed only one case where an individual was charged with the same offence—the case of R v Lees [2003]. In the case of Lees, a man flew his helicopter directly at an airport control tower.
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) accepted that the protesters did not “endanger safety,” however the contention was that “there was likely endangerment” due to their actions. CPS’s argument, including their submission that the protesters’ actions could have led to “the possibility that a police officer might have slipped in a chase,” did not convince the court. The Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Appeal, Lord Burnett, stated the protesters’ conduct did not satisfy the serious offence they were convicted of, and “there was, in truth, no case to answer”. All 15 of the protesters were vindicated of the convictions contrary to the 1990 Act.
Convicting the Stansted 15 or any protesters that non-violently protest governmental policies would set a very dangerous precedent. The right to non-violently protest is a fundamental right—the Court of Appeal’s judgment is a major victory for protest rights.
Zaki has a background in human rights law and international protection. He has worked in different international organisations and law firms in the UK and in the Middle East. Currently, he works in refugee law and policy in London.