Chiara Sarti v R

Chiara Sarti v R

The offence under s. 7 Public Order Act 2023, which criminalises intentional or reckless interference with key national infrastructure causing significant delay, is compatible with Articles 10 and 11 ECHR without requiring an individual proportionality assessment in each case. The statutory ingredients, including the limitation to specified roads and the requirement of significant delay, strike the necessary balance between protest rights and the rights of others. The reasonable excuse defence does not mandate a proportionality assessment where the statutory scheme itself ensures compatibility with the Convention.

Parties
Appellant: Chiara Sarti; Appellant: Daniel Hall; Appellant: Phoebe Plummer; Respondent: Rex
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 June 2025
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Public Order Offences, Protest Law, Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Assembly, Proportionality, Reasonable Excuse Defence
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Public Order Offences Protest Law Freedom of Expression Freedom of Assembly Proportionality +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chiara Sarti

Appellant

Daniel Hall

Appellant

Phoebe Plummer

Appellant

Rex

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the offence under s. 7 Public Order Act 2023 is compatible with Articles 10 and 11 ECHR without an individual proportionality assessment
  2. 2 Whether the defence of reasonable excuse under s. 7(2) POA 2023 requires a proportionality assessment in protest cases

Ratio Decidendi

The offence under s. 7 Public Order Act 2023, which criminalises intentional or reckless interference with key national infrastructure causing significant delay, is compatible with Articles 10 and 11 ECHR without requiring an individual proportionality assessment in each case. The statutory ingredients, including the limitation to specified roads and the requirement of significant delay, strike the necessary balance between protest rights and the rights of others. The reasonable excuse defence does not mandate a proportionality assessment where the statutory scheme itself ensures compatibility with the Convention.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to appeal granted
  • Appeal against conviction dismissed