R v Claire Smith & Ors

R v Claire Smith & Ors

The sentences imposed were not manifestly excessive; the sentencing judge was entitled to find high culpability and harm based on planning, foreseeable permanent damage to a heritage asset, and joint enterprise; conscientious motivation was properly considered but did not warrant reduction; all applicants were equally responsible; the custody threshold was passed and the sentences were proportionate.

Parties
Respondent: Rex; Applicant: Claire Smith; Applicant: Louis McKechnie; Applicant: Riley Ings; Applicant: Christopher Bennett; Applicant: Rachel Steele
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 December 2025
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
applications for extension of time and leave to appeal against sentence refused
Legal Topics
Criminal Damage, Sentencing, Protest Offences, Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Assembly
Criminal Law Human Rights Law Criminal Damage Sentencing Protest Offences Freedom of Expression Freedom of Assembly

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Respondent

Claire Smith

Applicant

Louis McKechnie

Applicant

Riley Ings

Applicant

Christopher Bennett

Applicant

Rachel Steele

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentences imposed for criminal damage were manifestly excessive
  2. 2 Whether the applicants' actions were a proportionate exercise of their rights under articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights
  3. 3 Whether the sentencing judge erred in categorising the offence as high culpability and harm

Ratio Decidendi

The sentences imposed were not manifestly excessive; the sentencing judge was entitled to find high culpability and harm based on planning, foreseeable permanent damage to a heritage asset, and joint enterprise; conscientious motivation was properly considered but did not warrant reduction; all applicants were equally responsible; the custody threshold was passed and the sentences were proportionate.

Court Disposition

applications for extension of time and leave to appeal against sentence refused