Two Just Stop Oil supporters found guilty for Heathrow paint spraying following retrial

Two Just Stop Oil supporters who sprayed Heathrow departure boards with orange paint during the Oil Kills international uprising to end fossil fuels in July 2024 have been found guilty in a retrial after the jury in an earlier trial failed to reach a majority decision.

Phoebe Plummer and Jane Touil were appearing before Judge Duncan at Isleworth Crown Court for the second time on a charge of criminal damage over £5,000 for their action on 30 July 2024 to demand a fossil fuel treaty to end oil and gas by 2030.

The jury took four-and-a-half hours to reach a majority verdict of 10-2. Following the verdict, Touil said:

Since I took action, global fossil fuel use and emissions have continued to rise. More than ever, we need a global fossil fuel treaty to help governments rapidly phase out fossil fuels.

What we do at this moment in history matters. But there is a difference between laws and morality. The courts apply the law made by powerful people. Morals come from within. It is our morals that give us our conscience. I have always tried to live according to my conscience.

Plummer said:

The climate crisis is the greatest injustice that humanity has ever faced. We should all consider what to do at this time. No individual caused this crisis and no one is solely responsible for stopping it. But we can choose what we do to alleviate suffering.

I feel compelled to act to be a responsible citizen, a loving aunt and a good person. It compels me to hope for a better future and one where my nephew grows up.

I didn’t think the action would change government policy. But non violent civil resistance is a necessary part of tackling the climate crisis and I’m grateful and proud to have been part of that.

Plummer was remanded for 58 days and Touil for 14 days following the 2024 action in which the pair used fire extinguishers to spray diluted water-based paint in Heathrow Terminal 5 including at the departure boards. The Crown alleged that the action caused £8,000 worth of damages and that three of the display screens needed to be replaced.

Judge ruled out various defences for Heathrow action

At trial, Judge Duncan ruled out several legal defences for the action including those of ‘reasonable excuse’ under Articles 10 and 11 of the ECHR, ‘necessity’ and ‘self defence’ on the grounds that the threat from climate change was not proximate enough and the actions too far removed from the threat.

The defendants were allowed to argue belief in consent: that they honestly believed the owners of Heathrow would have consented to the damage if they knew of its circumstances. However, evidence of the relevant circumstances was to be limited to the fact that it was a climate protest with all evidence about the scale and urgency of the climate crisis ruled ‘irrelevant and therefore inadmissible’.

In giving evidence, Touil said:

I genuinely and sincerely believed that if the shareholders [of Heathrow] had a full understanding of the situation we are in they would have given their consent to our action.

Most people believe there is something that is wrong with climate but not many people have access to the full situation because the fossil fuel industry has used their immense wealth to ensure that governments do not act and it is not reported in the mainstream media.

So I don’t know if shareholders have a full understanding, but I know that if they did, they would be doing all in their power to stop fossil fuels because there will be no business as usual, no functioning society, half the population could be wiped out along with 50% of global GDP. I think shareholders want to protect their investment but they also want a future for their kids.

In her evidence Plummer said:

I want to make it very clear that this was not a protest against Heathrow, or anyone flying through Heathrow that day. It’s true that the aviation industry is especially harmful to the climate in terms of emissions, though it is a small number of frequent fliers and private jet users who cause the vast majority of this harm, not families who save up for a holiday once a year.

But this wasn’t about getting people to stop flying. I made this individual change to live in line with my values, but honestly I know that it’s pretty inconsequential. Even if we all woke up tomorrow and stopped flying and went vegan, it would be like mopping up a spill from an overflowing bath whilst leaving the tap on.

All individual changes are like this when we are facing a systemic issue. If fossil fuels are extracted from the ground, then they will all be burnt, even if it’s not on a flight that you’re on. We need systemic change, that has always been Just Stop Oil’s demand.

My intention was not to cause damage. My intention was to take part in an act of nonviolent civil resistance, raising a serious alarm bell to the catastrophic future in store for us if we persist in our addiction to fossil fuels.

Featured image via Just Stop Oil