Rosa Hicks and others: Court of Appeal dismisses Just Stop Oil Heathrow convictions challenge

The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) has dismissed appeals brought by five members of Just Stop Oil convicted of conspiracy to cause a public nuisance following an attempted incursion at Heathrow Airport in July 2024, ruling that fresh evidence of juror internet research did not render the convictions unsafe.

In Rosa Hicks & Ors v R [2026] EWCA Crim 706, handed down on 5 June 2026, the Vice-President Lord Justice Edis, sitting with Mrs Justice McGowan and Mr Justice Griffiths, refused leave on four of five grounds of appeal and, having admitted fresh evidence under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 in respect of the fifth, ultimately dismissed that ground too.

Background

The five appellants -- Rosa Hicks, Adam Beard, Sean O'Callaghan, Sally Davidson and Hannah Schafer -- were among ten defendants tried at Isleworth Crown Court before Her Honour Judge Duncan. All five were convicted by a majority of 11 to 1 in March 2025 of conspiracy to cause a public nuisance, contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977. Sentences ranged from 15 months' immediate custody for Hicks to suspended terms with unpaid work requirements for O'Callaghan, Davidson and Schafer.

The prosecution arose from an attempt on 24 July 2024 to breach the perimeter fence at Heathrow's northern boundary. Those arrested at the fence were found carrying angle grinders, super glue, cable ties and high-visibility vests. Signal messages retrieved from a seized device were described as highly probative of the alleged conspiracy. The defence maintained throughout that the appellants expected arrest before causing any disruption and sought publicity for the climate cause rather than operational interference with the airport.

The juror misconduct ground

The principal ground, common to all five appellants, concerned the conduct of a juror identified in the judgement as Juror 5, who had conducted internet research into the case during deliberations and shared findings with fellow jurors. Evidence was received from a second juror, Juror 4, and from a subsequent police investigation. Paragraphs 32 to 89 of the judgement, together with the annexed table of searches and results, remain subject to a reporting postponement order under section 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, owing to anticipated criminal proceedings against Juror 5. That restriction runs until 4pm on 10 June 2026 unless extended on application by the Crown Prosecution Service.

The court admitted the fresh evidence on the basis that it "may" afford a ground of appeal, satisfying the threshold under section 23. Having conducted the required analysis, however, the court concluded that the evidence did not, in the event, provide a basis for allowing the appeal.

Remaining grounds

The three self-representing appellants pursued four additional grounds, though ground 4 was abandoned at the hearing. The court refused leave on all remaining grounds.

Ground 2, concerning the short notice given for the rescheduled trial start date, was rejected on the basis that any financial inconvenience caused by the week's delay had no bearing on the safety of convictions returned weeks later. Ground 3, relating to police arrests on court premises during the trial, was dismissed after the court found that Judge Duncan had made careful enquiries, satisfied herself there was no prejudicial effect on the jury and given appropriate directions. Ground 5, which alleged that prosecuting counsel had mischaracterised media coverage of the airport protest and that the judge had improperly vouched for counsel's good faith in response, was held to be unsustainable. The court found the direction had not instructed jurors to accept prosecution submissions, but only that they should not be rejected on grounds of dishonesty.

Ground 6 contended that the judge had undermined agreed facts concerning the existence and severity of the climate emergency. The court disagreed. The agreed facts were before the jury and the judge's direction went only to the irrelevance of jurors' personal opinions on climate change to the verdicts -- a distinction the court found entirely appropriate.

All applications and the appeal were dismissed.

A reporting postponement order remains in force in respect of paragraphs 32 to 89 and the annexed table. Any application to extend the order must be lodged with the clerk to Lord Justice Edis by 4pm on 8 June 2026.