A farmer from Wales, who is also a co-founder of the environmental campaign group Extinction Rebellion, lost his appeal over a conviction for conspiring to fly drones over Heathrow Airport. Roger Hallam, who hails from Carmarthenshire and is known for his organic vegetable farm, along with his co-conspirator Larch Maxey, were found guilty of plotting to cause a public nuisance back in 2023. Despite being spared jail time in April the following year, the duo faced legal consequences for their actions.
The trial that took place at Isleworth Crown Court unveiled that Hallam and Maxey had colluded in 2019 near Heathrow Airport to disrupt air traffic by flying drones. Described by a judge as the “theoretician” behind much of Extinction Rebellion’s initiatives, Hallam had his two-year sentence suspended for 18 months. Additionally, he was later imprisoned for five years for orchestrating protests that obstructed the M25 motorway, a sentence that was later reduced to four years.
In his defence, the 59-year-old farmer, who manages a small 10-acre farm in Llandeilo and is involved with groups like Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion, contended that his actions should not be considered criminal. However, Lord Justice William Davis, along with Mr Justice Goss and Mr Justice Dexter Dias, dismissed his appeal, upholding the original conviction linked to the drone incident at Heathrow Airport.
The disrupted plan to interfere with operations at the airport was crafted through the collective efforts of a group named Heathrow Pause. Their objective was to obstruct the airport’s functions, prompt arrests, and garner attention to pressure the government of the time to reconsider its plans for a third runway. The substantial policing costs incurred as a result of their actions were revealed to be over £1 million, with 1,600 officer shifts having to be rescheduled.
Maxey, Hallam’s co-defendant, also faced repercussions for his involvement in environmental protests. In September of the previous year, he was imprisoned for three years for occupying tunnels beneath the road leading to an oil terminal in Essex. During the appeal hearing in London, both Hallam and Maxey participated via video links from separate prisons, further highlighting the consequences of their activism.
While their legal representation argued that their conduct did not equate to causing a public nuisance, prosecutors maintained that the conspirators’ actions were intended to lead to the closure of Heathrow Airport, causing a potential national or international crisis. The court concluded that the intentions of the defendants were clear, and the jury was justified in their decision to convict them based on the evidence presented.
Despite the unsuccessful appeal, Hallam and Maxey continued to advocate their innocence, emphasizing that their actions were not intended to cause harm but to raise awareness through a symbolic demonstration. The case serves as a reminder of the legal ramifications that can accompany activism and civil disobedience aimed at highlighting environmental concerns and pushing for policy changes.
As the legal process unfolds, individuals and groups involved in environmental activism will likely continue to navigate the fine line between peaceful demonstration and actions that could potentially disrupt public order. The outcome of cases like these can shape the future landscape of protest movements and the boundaries within which they operate, sparking discussions on the balance between activism, legality, and societal impact.