When seven Just Stop Oil protesters were convicted of trespassing, the judge in the case had some warm words for those found guilty.

District Judge Graham Wilkinson at Wolverhampton Magistrates’ Court praised the activists’ ‘admirable aims’ after they disrupted operations at an Esso fuel terminal in Birmingham last April. Wilkinson told the group during the end of the trial last week that he was moved by their ‘deeply emotive’ explanations.

This was a strange thing to say to those whose crime was not entirely victimless: the cost to the Metropolitan Police alone of the Just Stop Oil Protests over the days of the protests exceeded £425,000, to say nothing of the disruption to people going about their ordinary business.

The judge’s unusual remarks did not stop there: he could not, he said, allow his own ‘moral compass or political beliefs’ to affect his decisions. Why, some might wonder, did the judge feel the need to refer to his own moral compass or political beliefs at all? He explained:

‘Trust in the rule of law is an essential ingredient of society and it will erode swiftly if judges make politically or morally-motivated decisions that do not accord with established legal principles.’

As an abstract statement of principle that could not have been put better. As part of a judge’s sentencing remarks, it had the opposite effect to that which he intended. By implying a tension between ‘politically or morally-motivated decisions’ and the application of ‘established legal principles’ the judge could hardly have given a stronger hint as to where his own political and moral sympathies lay.

Judge Wilkinson’s words have been exploited by Just Stop Oil

The defendants evidently had no real defence to the charges, although they had taken up a great deal of court time ensuring that their trial was a publicity event. And had the judge then simply passed the appropriate sentences few (except possibly Just Stop Oil) would have criticised him. Instead he decided to lavish praise on the defendants and their cause:

‘It is unarguable that man-made global warming is real and that we are facing a climate crisis. That is accepted and recognised by the scientific community and most governments (including our own).

‘Your aims are to slow or even stop the advance of global warming and therefore to preserve the planet not just for generations to come but for existing generations.

‘No-one can therefore criticise your motivations and indeed each of you has spoken individually about your own personal experiences, motivations and actions. Many of your explanations for your actions were deeply emotive and I am sure all listening were moved by them, I know I was.

‘In simple terms you are good people with admirable aims. However, if good people with the right motivation do the wrong thing it can never make that wrong thing right, it can only ever act as substantial mitigation.’

It is not at all clear what the judge had in mind when he referred to the protestors’ ‘admirable aims’. He referred to their general aim of stopping global warming but the specific aim of the protest in which the defendants had been participating was (according to Just Stop Oil and the defendants themselves) to persuade the Government to end all new oil and gas projects. That is not self-evidently an admirable aim: it is a highly controversial political objective. The judge ought to have done his utmost to avoid expressing any view on it. Instead his words implied that he supported it – and even that his ‘moral compass’ pointed in the opposite direction to the legal compass he had to obey.

To make matters worse, Wilkinson’s words have been exploited by Just Stop Oil. Soon after the case ended, Just Stop Oil issued a gloating press release claiming the judge had told them all that they should ‘feel guilty for nothing’. Court officials pointed out that parts of the press release were misleading: the ‘you should feel guilty for nothing’ comment, for example, had been directed to one particular defendant who had given tearful evidence about how he felt guilty for not doing enough to save the planet.

Even the most junior judges need to take great care to ensure that their impartiality is not compromised by the use of careless language.They should concentrate on applying the law – and keep their politics firmly to themselves.