Sycamore Gap Tree latest.

MuttleyCAFC said:

I think sentences like these have to carry a detterent message. These two idiots are unlikely to do something similar again but now other idiots might think twice or even three times.

Problem is, idiots who are going to do something similar dont care / dont have the sense to realise what any punishment will be. 

ME14addick said:

swordfish said:

Whilst appalled by their actions and a supporter of climate justice, I don't think the court of public opinion should influence sentencing, and from the reporting, I get the impression that's what's happened here. What next? State sanctioned vigilantism? 

Judges have to adhere to sentencing guidelines, that is what the judge did in this case.

Not saying she didn't, but like I say, I don't think public opinion should factor into it. What mechanism could be used to capture and evaluate that anyway? Reading the papers, watching the news, scrolling through posts on social media, asking down the pub? 

southamptonaddick said:

MrOneLung said:

It's a fucking tree

Meanwhile, youths carrying knives just get warnings/community service

Just because "youths carrying knives" don't get the sentence they deserve, even though they should, doesn't mean other offences get lighter sentences as well. 

fair comment, although I don't think 4 years 3 months is a commensurate sentence for their idiotic crime

RodneyCharltonTrotta said:

Similar case in Ireland last year but they only got tree years.

werent there tree fellers in that one?

killerandflash said:

However much I hate what they did, it does seem an excessive punishment. 

Cutting down trees isn't a crime, the National Trust themselves cut down trees if they might damage historical properties. 

It's illegal to cut down a tree without the owner's permission. They did not have permission, so it is a crime for which they have been sentenced according to the sentencing guidelines.

Some facts which might be useful to the ongoing debate as to whether the sentence was too harsh (or otherwise). 

They will both be released from prison, but will continue to serve their sentences, after 40% of their term has been served, which means they will each serve one year, eight months and twelve days in prison.  They get credit for time already served.  Daniel Graham has been in prison since 21 December 2024, Adam Carruthers has been in prison since 9 May 2025. 

The judge took into account the very widespread distress caused by the felling of the tree and substantially uplifted the starting point of the sentencing to reflect this.  However, he also had the opportunity to uplift the starting point further, based the fact that damage has been caused

Chizz said:

Some facts which might be useful to the ongoing debate as to whether the sentence was too harsh (or otherwise). 

They will both be released from prison, but will continue to serve their sentences, after 40% of their term has been served, which means they will each serve one year, eight months and twelve days in prison.  They get credit for time already served.  Daniel Graham has been in prison since 21 December 2024, Adam Carruthers has been in prison since 9 May 2025. 

The judge took into account the very widespread distress caused by the felling of the tree and substantially uplifted the starting point of the sentencing to reflect this.  However, he also had the opportunity to uplift the starting point further, based the fact that damage has been caused

to a "heritage and/or cultural asset."  However, he didn't do this as it would be "double counting".  In other words, he could have ignored the "public opinion" and outrage caused and still ended up with the same sentence length by substantially uplifting the starting point, within the guidlines, due to the fact the damage was caused to a "heritage and/or cultural asset." 

The sentences were for two offences: the damage to the tree and the damage to Hadrian's Wall.  The judge decided these sentences can be served concurrently.  If he had decided to run them consecutively, it would have added another six months to each of their sentences.  

It’s very common for sentences to run concurrently when they are related so I don’t think the judge has been lenient here.
I’m all for the pond life of society getting strong sentences for their misdemeanours but the length of sentence seems incredibly long. Whether you look at it in isolation or in comparison to other newsworthy crimes of late. 

"Widespread distress" ????  Too many snowflake about if you ask me.

It was a tree for God sake. The wall was more historical imo. It was built by the Romans 2 thousand years ago. The tree just grew by itself. 

Not saying they should not have been punished but people viewing child sex abuse images & youths carrying knives get far less sentences.

golfaddick said:

"Widespread distress" ????  Too many snowflake about if you ask me.

It was a tree for God sake. The wall was more historical imo. It was built by the Romans 2 thousand years ago. The tree just grew by itself. 

Not saying they should not have been punished but people viewing child sex abuse images & youths carrying knives get far less sentences.

Would it help if I told you they were also listening to "foreign music" when they did it?

Chizz said:

Some facts which might be useful to the ongoing debate as to whether the sentence was too harsh (or otherwise). 

They will both be released from prison, but will continue to serve their sentences, after 40% of their term has been served, which means they will each serve one year, eight months and twelve days in prison.  They get credit for time already served.  Daniel Graham has been in prison since 21 December 2024, Adam Carruthers has been in prison since 9 May 2025. 

The judge took into account the very widespread distress caused by the felling of the tree and substantially uplifted the starting point of the sentencing to reflect this.  However, he also had the opportunity to uplift the starting point further, based the fact that damage has been caused

to a "heritage and/or cultural asset."  However, he didn't do this as it would be "double counting".  In other words, he could have ignored the "public opinion" and outrage caused and still ended up with the same sentence length by substantially uplifting the starting point, within the guidlines, due to the fact the damage was caused to a "heritage and/or cultural asset." 

The sentences were for two offences: the damage to the tree and the damage to Hadrian's Wall.  The judge decided these sentences can be served concurrently.  If he had decided to run them consecutively, it would have added another six months to each of their sentences.  

Measured how and by who? People not fully aquatinted with the facts as presented in court, but by what they see in the media? That's the way to go. Why not bring back lynch  mobs?

Just apply the law based on the evidence. The wider public should have no say in that. 

Chizz said:

killerandflash said:

If I cut down a neighbour's tree, it wouldn't end up in a criminal court.

And how original is Hadrian's Wall? Much of the stone was removed for building works, while much of the remaining wall has been rebuilt or repaired down the years.

Yes I get that a prison sentence is deserved, but the JSO attackers on the Van Goph Sunflowers got 24 and 20 months, not 4 years.

The scale, intent and irreversibility of the criminal damage to the tree is the main reason they were sentenced to longer terms than the two women who threw paint onto the glass protecting the painting. 

If you want to view van Gogh's Sunflowers painting you can. If you want to visit the sycamore tree, you can't. 

The 500 year old Enfield Oak tree cut down by the pub was a far greater ecological and historical loss, but there's no court case at all.

killerandflash said:

Chizz said:

killerandflash said:

If I cut down a neighbour's tree, it wouldn't end up in a criminal court.

And how original is Hadrian's Wall? Much of the stone was removed for building works, while much of the remaining wall has been rebuilt or repaired down the years.

Yes I get that a prison sentence is deserved, but the JSO attackers on the Van Goph Sunflowers got 24 and 20 months, not 4 years.

The scale, intent and irreversibility of the criminal damage to the tree is the main reason they were sentenced to longer terms than the two women who threw paint onto the glass protecting the painting. 

If you want to view van Gogh's Sunflowers painting you can. If you want to visit the sycamore tree, you can't. 

The 500 year old Enfield Oak tree cut down by the pub was a far greater ecological and historical loss, but there's no court case at all.

I'm sorry, I haven't got time to comment on every post of whataboutatree. 

Chizz said:

swordfish said:

Chizz said:

Some facts which might be useful to the ongoing debate as to whether the sentence was too harsh (or otherwise). 

They will both be released from prison, but will continue to serve their sentences, after 40% of their term has been served, which means they will each serve one year, eight months and twelve days in prison.  They get credit for time already served.  Daniel Graham has been in prison since 21 December 2024, Adam Carruthers has been in prison since 9 May 2025. 

The judge took into account the very widespread distress caused by the felling of the tree and substantially uplifted the starting point of the sentencing to reflect this.  However, he also had the opportunity to uplift the starting point further, based the fact that damage has been caused

to a "heritage and/or cultural asset."  However, he didn't do this as it would be "double counting".  In other words, he could have ignored the "public opinion" and outrage caused and still ended up with the same sentence length by substantially uplifting the starting point, within the guidlines, due to the fact the damage was caused to a "heritage and/or cultural asset." 

The sentences were for two offences: the damage to the tree and the damage to Hadrian's Wall.  The judge decided these sentences can be served concurrently.  If he had decided to run them consecutively, it would have added another six months to each of their sentences.  

Measured how and by who? People not fully aquatinted with the facts as presented in court, but by what they see in the media? That's the way to go. Why not bring back lynch  mobs?

Just apply the law based on the evidence. The wider public should have no say in that. 

Measured by the Judge, based on a statement made by Mr Andrew Poad of the National Trust, which owned the tree. The contents of Mr Poad’s statement and the examples of heart-felt messages from members of the public he has provided, reflected the Judge's impression from media accounts of the public’s reaction, which was one of widespread shock and bewilderment. 

I'll be surprised if the sentences aren't reduced on appeal then. Could have imposed the sentence without compromising it by bringing pubic perceptions as influenced by the media into it for the look of the thing. Good defence lawyers be all over that imo. 

Chizz said:

swordfish said:

Chizz said:

swordfish said:

Chizz said:

Some facts which might be useful to the ongoing debate as to whether the sentence was too harsh (or otherwise). 

They will both be released from prison, but will continue to serve their sentences, after 40% of their term has been served, which means they will each serve one year, eight months and twelve days in prison.  They get credit for time already served.  Daniel Graham has been in prison since 21 December 2024, Adam Carruthers has been in prison since 9 May 2025. 

The judge took into account the very widespread distress caused by the felling of the tree and substantially uplifted the starting point of the sentencing to reflect this.  However, he also had the opportunity to uplift the starting point further, based the fact that damage has been caused

to a "heritage and/or cultural asset."  However, he didn't do this as it would be "double counting".  In other words, he could have ignored the "public opinion" and outrage caused and still ended up with the same sentence length by substantially uplifting the starting point, within the guidlines, due to the fact the damage was caused to a "heritage and/or cultural asset." 

The sentences were for two offences: the damage to the tree and the damage to Hadrian's Wall.  The judge decided these sentences can be served concurrently.  If he had decided to run them consecutively, it would have added another six months to each of their sentences.  

Measured how and by who? People not fully aquatinted with the facts as presented in court, but by what they see in the media? That's the way to go. Why not bring back lynch  mobs?

Just apply the law based on the evidence. The wider public should have no say in that. 

Measured by the Judge, based on a statement made by Mr Andrew Poad of the National Trust, which owned the tree. The contents of Mr Poad’s statement and the examples of heart-felt messages from members of the public he has provided, reflected the Judge's impression from media accounts of the public’s reaction, which was one of widespread shock and bewilderment. 

I'll be surprised if the sentences aren't reduced on appeal then. Could have imposed the sentence without compromising it by bringing pubic perceptions as influenced by the media into it for the look of the thing. Good defence lawyers be all over that imo. 

Just to repeat what I posted earlier, if he had not taken into account the widespread distress caused as an aggravating factor, he could have uplifted the starting point, based the fact that damage has been caused to a "heritage and/or cultural asset."  He chose - correctly - not to do both.  So, if at appeal it is decided that he should not have considered the widespread distress caused, the sentence could, in effect, be unchanged, as consideration would then be given to the fact that damage has been caused to a "heritage and/or cultural asset."  

An appeal would likely fail, expensively, unless it can be shown the Judge did not apply sentencing guidelines appropriately or properly.  He clearly did. 

For others to decide. Not you. 

So had I sent a note, or others like me, and I'm playing devil's advocate here, claiming that I was pleased to see the back of it and thought it was an eyesore, should my view and others like it  have weighed in the balance do you think?

swordfish said:

Chizz said:

swordfish said:

Chizz said:

swordfish said:

Chizz said:

Some facts which might be useful to the ongoing debate as to whether the sentence was too harsh (or otherwise). 

They will both be released from prison, but will continue to serve their sentences, after 40% of their term has been served, which means they will each serve one year, eight months and twelve days in prison.  They get credit for time already served.  Daniel Graham has been in prison since 21 December 2024, Adam Carruthers has been in prison since 9 May 2025. 

The judge took into account the very widespread distress caused by the felling of the tree and substantially uplifted the starting point of the sentencing to reflect this.  However, he also had the opportunity to uplift the starting point further, based the fact that damage has been caused

to a "heritage and/or cultural asset."  However, he didn't do this as it would be "double counting".  In other words, he could have ignored the "public opinion" and outrage caused and still ended up with the same sentence length by substantially uplifting the starting point, within the guidlines, due to the fact the damage was caused to a "heritage and/or cultural asset." 

The sentences were for two offences: the damage to the tree and the damage to Hadrian's Wall.  The judge decided these sentences can be served concurrently.  If he had decided to run them consecutively, it would have added another six months to each of their sentences.  

Measured how and by who? People not fully aquatinted with the facts as presented in court, but by what they see in the media? That's the way to go. Why not bring back lynch  mobs?

Just apply the law based on the evidence. The wider public should have no say in that. 

Measured by the Judge, based on a statement made by Mr Andrew Poad of the National Trust, which owned the tree. The contents of Mr Poad’s statement and the examples of heart-felt messages from members of the public he has provided, reflected the Judge's impression from media accounts of the public’s reaction, which was one of widespread shock and bewilderment. 

I'll be surprised if the sentences aren't reduced on appeal then. Could have imposed the sentence without compromising it by bringing pubic perceptions as influenced by the media into it for the look of the thing. Good defence lawyers be all over that imo. 

Just to repeat what I posted earlier, if he had not taken into account the widespread distress caused as an aggravating factor, he could have uplifted the starting point, based the fact that damage has been caused to a "heritage and/or cultural asset."  He chose - correctly - not to do both.  So, if at appeal it is decided that he should not have considered the widespread distress caused, the sentence could, in effect, be unchanged, as consideration would then be given to the fact that damage has been caused to a "heritage and/or cultural asset."  

An appeal would likely fail, expensively, unless it can be shown the Judge did not apply sentencing guidelines appropriately or properly.  He clearly did. 

For others to decide. Not you. 

So had I sent a note, or others like me, and I'm playing devil's advocate here, claiming that I was pleased to see the back of it and thought it was an eyesore, should my view and others like it  have weighed in the balance do you think?

If you had sent a note to the National Trust to tell them you were pleased to see the back of it and you thought it was an eyesore, your comments would be weighed against the vast outpouring of messages the NT received that showed the opposite view.  

The NT received more than 2,500 messages from members and from the public expressing sorrow, grief, devastation, anger, frustration, disgust,  disbelief and condemnation.  There are no recorded instances of anyone writing in support of the crime.  So, even if you had sent that message for whatever reason, NT's evidence would still be that they had received widespread condemnation.  

My opinion is that the Judge acted properly.  Is there anything in his sentencing remarks that makes you think he didn't and that therefore, "good defence lawyers will be all over it?"