Judges have directed that the National Highways has ordered nine Insulate Britain activists to be released from prison for violating High Court Injunctions. They will only have to pay 50% of National Highways’ ‘excessive claim for legal expenses.
They were sentenced Wednesday to a term of imprisonment after admitting that they had violated an injunction when they participated in a blockade at Junction 25 of M25 in the early hours on Tuesday, October 8.
Ana Heyatawin, age 58, was sentenced to three-month imprisonment, along with Louis McKechnie (age 20). Ben Buse, 36; Roman Paluchnik, 28. Oliver Rock, 41. Emma Smart, 44. Tim Speers, 36., and James Thomas received four-month terms.
After Ben Taylor’s submissions on Tuesday, Dame Victoria Sharp described them as being ‘inflammatory’, ‘call to arms, and given him a six-month sentence.
As Mr Justice Chamberlain sat, the judge said that there were no alternatives to prison sentences because of their actions. They had already made clear that they wanted to flout any court orders.
Myriam Stacey QC, representing National Highways, previously said the legal costs of the proceedings were just over £91,000 and she asked the court to order the protesters to pay.
Dame Victoria and Mr Justice Chamberlain ordered each of the activists to pay £5,000 towards National Highways’ costs, making a total of £45,000.
After admitting to violating an injunction against protesting, nine Insulate Britain eco-zealots were sentenced by the High Court
Insulate Britain Protesters blocked the M25 at Junction 31 on October 31st, this year
The two judges decided that, while it was fair for activists in jail to be paid some legal fees after hearings, National Highways’ claims of excessive costs were not justified.
The fees charged by National Highways included advice fees from four senior and four junior barristers. There were also additional fees for three other barristers.
Dame Victoria declared, “Even considering the need to examine relatively extensive evidence…we consider that these expenses were excessive.”
Two judges stated it wasn’t reasonable for three lawyers to be present at the High Court hearing.
Sixteen of nine Insulate Britain activists were sentenced at London’s High Court on Thursday
Ben Taylor, Insulate Britain activist (left), was led from London’s High Court in handcuffs away. He boasted that he would block the motorway once more if he wasn’t already in prison. Taylor can be seen shouting, and although what he says is inaudible was captured by photographers. However, the photographer said that he seemed to shout encouragement at his supporters. Roman Paluch-Machnik, 28, also pictured (right), was one of six activists who were held for four months.
Judges concluded that ‘We expect the claimant would enter into dialogue with defendants regarding how this liability will be discharged.
Insulate Britain said that they intend to keep the demonstrations going, which has angered drivers and other people affected by the blockades. They will not stop until the government agrees to insulate their homes.
To stop demonstrators from blocking roads, the High Court issued five injunctions.
There are four National Highways injunctions that ban demonstrations around London’s Port of Dover and the M25. Another one is for Transport for London (TfL).
TfL was issued a civil banning notice to prevent protesters blocking the traffic flow on some of capital’s busiest streets.
Injunction breaker could face contempt charges and a maximum sentence of 2 years imprisonment or an unlimited fine.
Additional committal proceedings against Insulate Britain protesters in connection to demonstrations of October 27, are anticipated.
It came as an Insulate Britain crowdfunding page that received more than £60,000 of donations has been removed following accusations of it ‘funding criminal activity’.
Since September 13, activists from an affiliate of Extinction Rebellion have been causing havoc on major roads by blocking them.
There were hundreds of protestors arrested in demonstrations against the M25, Port of Dover, and London’s roads network. This was despite High Court bans preventing the group from using all the major roads of England.
An Insulate Britain fundraising page on Crowdfunder raised a total of £61,970 from 632 contributions in the 29 days since it was created.
According to the page, donations will be used for’movement construction, nonviolent direct actions training, back office expenses and campaign materials and and equipment.
Crowdfunder, however, has stopped any additional money being donated to this campaign group.
Insulate Britain tweeted that the fundraising event was cancelled due to media pressure.
The move comes after concerns about the legality and legitimacy of donations. These appear to be directly related to fundraising for criminal activities.
Tom Barr, a Surrey resident delayed by Insulate Britain and who raised concerns about Insulate Britain’s funding page to Crowdfunder, said it was ‘obviously the funding of crime’.
He said: “Crowdfunder, and the Fundraising Regulationator, are to be commended because they took prompt action in preventing what was clearly the financing of crime.”
‘But it should not be for ordinary people to make this happen; the taxpayer supports generous salaries for the senior figures in authority that should be acting imaginatively, proactively and robustly to protect the public.’
Crowdfunder did not refer the page to Crowdfunder, however, a spokesperson from the Fundraising Regulator confirmed that the watchdog is currently in discussion with Crowdfunder about general legal issues that have been raised.
A statement continued: ‘Insulate Britain is a campaigning group made up of likeminded individuals and not a registered charity within the legal scope of the Charity Commission, nor does it fall within the Fundraising Regulator’s regulatory remit, as it is not a charitable fundraising organisation.
‘We work with 20 online fundraising platforms registered with us to develop standards and guidance, reflected in the Code of Fundraising Practice.
‘The Code makes clear the responsibilities of online platforms to ensure that fundraising activity carried out using their sites is lawful, and where it is charitable, complies with the Code of Fundraising Practice.’