New York should follow Britain’s example and imprison illegal protesters

New York is bracing for a late summer and fall of unrest and disruption as anti-Israel students return to campuses and the presidential election approaches.

But the protests would have a better chance of remaining peaceful – which demonstrators often say they intend – if the city followed the example of Britain, where prosecutors and judges apply the law in such a way that illegal actions by protesters of all political stripes have real consequences.

Last month, British judge Christopher Hehir shocked the British when he sentenced Just Stop Oil climate activist Roger Hallam to five years in prison and four of his accomplices to four years each.

The convictions came under a 2022 UK law that criminalises “conspiracy to commit public nuisance”, which is any act that causes “direct harm” to the public.

In this case, Hallam & Co. did not act violently: Hehir ruled that they had conspired to “cause a nuisance” by closing a major motorway, the M25 in southern England, for several days in November 2022.

The conspiracy emerged when activists organized their blockades through a public Zoom meeting recorded by a journalist. The call recruited dozens of people to participate in the blockade, which caused gridlock in four counties over four days.

At the verdict, Hehir made refreshing remarks: The five people, he said, all of them in their late adult years, had intentionally broken the law and caused nearly $2.5 million in damage through traffic delays and delayed police responses – and, crucially, they were aware of the potential consequences of their actions.

The “harm” caused by the defendants, according to Hehir, was “intentional” – their rolling roadblocks caused people to miss flights, funerals, exams and more.

And, he said, the climate “emergency” that the defendants cited to justify their lawsuit was not an excuse, but a aggravating Factor in the decision-making process.

“Because you fundamentally believe that criminal law really doesn't matter because of climate change,” Hehir wrote, “there is a real danger that each of you will commit further serious crimes… unless you are deterred.”

And there were no mitigating circumstances, he decided, that could absolve them of responsibility.

Not caring for family members: It was, Hehir wrote about one defendant, “a great pity that you put people close to you in a difficult situation by participating in crimes of this severity.”

No youth: He said to the youngest defendant, 22 years old: “You are a highly intelligent and well-educated young woman. Neither immaturity nor personal disadvantages drove you into crime – your own conscious decisions did that.”

The same judge has ordered two climate change defendants – both 22-year-old women who threw soup at a Van Gogh painting in the National Gallery – to prepare to begin prison next month if they are convicted of criminal damage.

This severity is hardly a form of bias against the left: other British judges have imposed long sentences of up to three years in prison on the right-wing rioters who went on the offensive last month after the murder of three children in northwest England, based on a false rumor that the killer was a recent immigrant.

Contrast this swift, sure justice with the political vacillation in New York following recent unrest-mongering demonstrations, mostly centered on Israel and Gaza: the occupation of Hamilton Hall in Columbia in April, the occupation of last year's Thanksgiving parade and this year's Pride celebration, and repeated, targeted delays of road and rail traffic.

At such events, police regularly arrest dozens of people for violations of a range of laws, from minor offenses such as trespassing and disturbing the peace to more serious offenses such as burglary.

And the city's prosecutors – including Manhattan's Alvin Bragg after the Columbia riots – also routinely drop or downgrade charges.

Even the leaders of these “protests” remain at large, despite vowing to continue breaking the law.

Perhaps a year-long prison sentence for a one-time road blockade is excessive.

But why don't New York prosecutors, especially Bragg, start small by actually bringing charges for repeated violations such as disturbing the peace or criminal nuisance?

And why not demand the penalties provided by state law for such charges, which can range from a few days to several months?

Why aren't some of these less serious cases brought before a jury to convict the defendants, as British prosecutors have done in their climate change cases?

Yes, the United States has a First Amendment that the UK lacks – but the Bill of Rights protects truly peaceful protests, not chronic minor violations of the law.

As Judge Hehir put it, “fanaticism” that leads someone to “completely disregard the rights of their fellow citizens” must be punished in order to “hopefully deter others.”

Nicole Gelinas is an editor at the Manhattan Institute's City Journal.