Climate campaigner faces jail for breaking embargo on Heathrow expansion court ruling

For free real time breaking news alerts sent straight to your inbox sign up to our breaking news emails

Sign up to our free breaking news emails

Please enter a valid email address

Please enter a valid email address

SIGN UP

I would like to be emailed about offers, events and updates from The Independent. Read our privacy policy

A climate campaigner facing jail for breaking an embargo on Heathrow airport court ruling has said prison would be “a tiny price to pay to get the truth out”

Tim Crosland, the director of environmental campaigning organisation Plan B Earth, is facing an application from the attorney general to the Supreme Court to be held in contempt of court, which is punishable by up to two years in prison or an unlimited fine.

In December the lawyer broke an embargo on a Supreme Court ruling over the government’s plans to build a third runway at Heathrow by tweeting the judgement a day before it was due to be published.

Arriving on Monday at the Royal Courts of Justice ahead of his contempt hearing, Mr Crosland, said his tweet was an act of “civil disobedience” and he had "no choice but to protest the deep immorality of the court’s ruling”.

He had brought a small suitcase and packed his toothbrush when arriving at the court, he said, because he was fully prepared to be jailed.

“The government knew the consequences of breaching that limit would be devastating for all our young people, for the global south, and they kept that information away from public view in order to smooth the progress of the £14-billion project to expand Heathrow Airport, and so I decided to blow the whistle."

The case last December was an appeal by the government against an earlier Court of Appeal ruling that ministers had ignored their own climate commitments when they approved the third runway scheme.

The Supreme Court ultimately overturned this judgement, clearing the way for the third runway to go ahead, but circulated their ruling a day in advance to those involved in the case, including Mr Crosland.

He said that when he read the judgement, he concluded the justices had “compounded the government’s original suppression of evidence” about whether expanding Heathrow was incompatible with the UK’s pledges under the Paris climate agreement.

He decided to release the ruling early as an act of protest, despite knowing it broke a legally binding embargo.

Speaking as his hearing before three Supreme Court judges for contempt of court got underway, Mr Crosland said: “The attorney general prosecutes me for highlighting the Government’s dishonesty and climate hypocrisy in the year of COP26.

"It’s the classic case of retribution against the whistleblower by those attempting to conceal their own guilt.

“I believed that Heathrow expansion would breach the Paris temperature limit of 1.5C,” he told the court. “The antidote to that suppression was the spotlight of publicity that would follow from breaking the embargo.”

Opening the case on behalf of the attorney general, Aidan Eardley said Mr Crosland’s tweets ensured the Supreme Court judgement “spread like wildfire”. Despite being asked to take down his post, he refused.

The environmental campaigner has "remained entirely unapologetic" since, Mr Eardley added, and had shown "wilful defiance to the authority of the court".

Mr Crosland asked the judges to "consider the consequences" of allowing Heathrow expansion, saying it would cause "the loss of life, the betrayal of the younger generation, the betrayal of the international community".

Mr Crosland added that "to all sensible people, to all people of conscience, and to all faithful public servants", revealing the court’s decision was "trivial by comparison".

It is not yet known when the three judges will make their decision.