As with the impacts of climate change, which were previously thought of as something happening elsewhere and not affecting the UK, restrictions on those seeking to defend the environment are also having an impact here and are an increasing barrier to access to environmental justice.

In a position paper published earlier this year, Michel Forst, the UN special rapporteur on environmental defenders, stated: ‘The repression that environmental activists who use peaceful civil disobedience are currently facing in Europe is a major threat to democracy and human rights.’1State repression of environmental protest and civil disobedience: a major threat to human rights and democracy, UNECE, February 2024, page 2. While the limitations and effects here in the UK may not be as extreme as those witnessed elsewhere in Europe (and the wider world), they nonetheless highlight an apparent move by those in authority towards stifling environmental protest. At a time of climate, biodiversity and pollution crises, this is a particularly worrying trend.

The post of special rapporteur on environmental defenders was established to provide a rapid response mechanism under the international Aarhus Convention (the UN Economic Commission for Europe Convention on Access to Environmental Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters), signed by the UK in 2004.

The objective of the Aarhus Convention (set out in article 1) is to ‘to contribute to the protection of the right of every person of present and future generations to live in an environment adequate to his or her health and well-being’, and parties guarantee procedural rights under the three pillars of information, public participation and access to justice. Article 3(8) protects peaceful environmental protest by requiring parties to ‘ensure that persons exercising their rights in conformity with the provisions of this convention shall not be penalized, persecuted or harassed in any way for their involvement’. The establishment of the new rapid response mechanism followed alarm raised at a Meeting of the Parties in October 2021 at the serious situation faced by environmental defenders. In view of the urgency, complaints can be made directly to the special rapporteur (rather than the usual route via the Aarhus Convention Complaints Committee) and complainants do not have to have exhausted domestic remedies before doing so.

Among the issues outlined, the special rapporteur’s position paper highlights legislative and policy changes that are having a repressive effect. In the UK, those cited are the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act (PCSA) 2022 and the Public Order Act (POA) 2023. The PCSA 2022 enables the police to restrict or ban ‘noisy’ or ‘disruptive’ public assemblies. The POA 2023 grants the police extended powers to restrict peaceful protest as well as criminalising activities such as ‘locking on’ (attaching oneself to another person, object or building) or being equipped for such activity. It also introduces the offence of interference with key national infrastructure (including road, airports, railways, energy and newspaper printing installations). The government’s factsheet on the original bill2Public Order Bill: factsheet, Home Office, 11 May 2022; last updated 30 August 2023. refers to disruptive protests at such sites as reason for the new provisions.

Cases have also been reported of environmental protestors appearing in court being barred from explaining the motivation (climate change) for their actions from juries and facing contempt proceedings for doing so.3See, for example, Sandra Laville, ‘Court restrictions on climate protesters “deeply concerning”, say leading lawyers’, Guardian, 8 March 2023. Additionally, the government recently sought to charge Trudi Warner with contempt for holding up a sign about the rights of jurors to acquit on the basis of their conscience (based on a long-standing court ruling) outside a court at the start of a trial against a group of roadblock protesters. While the High Court dismissed the case,4HM Solicitor General v Warner [2024] EWHC 918 (KB). the government has indicated it will appeal.5Sandra Laville, ‘Solicitor general to appeal over case of climate activist who held sign on jurors’ rights’, Guardian, 15 May 2024.

However, it’s not just those environmental defenders on the streets who are being restricted. The Environmental Law Foundation was contacted by Colin Shearn, the founder and former chair of the Farnborough Noise Action Group, which has concerns about the operations and plans for an increasing number of flights at Farnborough Airport, the UK’s largest private-jet airfield. In February 2024, Surrey Police presented him with a 92-page document, accusing him of ‘conducting an aggressive and relentless campaign’ against the airport over a period of two to three years. It went to on say that he had been ‘bombarding’ the airport and other authorities with ‘endless questions about air traffic which he alleges causes a disturbance’ as well as ‘adopting a belligerent and aggressive style, distorting or mispresenting a point to view to suit his agenda’.

Mr Shearn disputes the accusations, but he was charged with anti-social behaviour, convicted and given a two-year anti-social behaviour injunction (ASBI) along with a costs order.6Damien Gayle, ‘Farnborough airport’s biggest critic silenced as expansion plans continue’, Guardian, 3 January 2024. The ASBI prevents him from engaging with the Civil Aviation Authority, the airport or the Farnborough Aerodrome Consultative Committee, for example. Mr Shearn is now unable to raise concerns about any new proposals and his silencing effectively stops him from participating in any decision-making. He has made a statement to the special rapporteur.

As the special rapporteur notes, all these restrictions have a chilling effect not only on democracy but also on society’s capacity to deal with the environmental crises with the urgency required.