I understood the defendants were charged with intentional disruption of services and endangerment at an aerodrome under the 1990 Aviation and Maritime Security Act.
"
Endangering safety at aerodromes.
(1)It is an offence for any person by means of any device, substance or weapon intentionally to commit at an aerodrome serving international civil aviation any act of violence which—
(a)causes or is likely to cause death or serious personal injury, and
(b)endangers or is likely to endanger the safe operation of the aerodrome or the safety of persons at the aerodrome.
(2)It is also, subject to subsection (4) below, an offence for any person by means of any device, substance or weapon unlawfully and intentionally—
(a)to destroy or seriously to damage—
(i)property used for the provision of any facilities at an aerodrome serving international civil aviation (including any apparatus or equipment so used), or
(ii)any aircraft which is at such an aerodrome but is not in service, or
(b)to disrupt the services of such an aerodrome,
in such a way as to endanger or be likely to endanger the safe operation of the aerodrome or the safety of persons at the aerodrome.
"
None of which looks particularly like what they actually did....
also note
"Proceedings for an offence under this section shall not be instituted—
in England and Wales, except by, or with the consent of, the Attorney General"
So in this case a political appointee gets to decide whether to throw the book at people posing a direct challenge to a flagship government policy. I note that the reasons for the AG's decision were not disclosed to the defence.
As I understand it what would have taken about 15 minutes in a magistrates court. "Cut a fence and behaved like cnuts your worship"..."did they the guilty bastards.. right... fines costs and victim supplements..... next guilty bastard..." got strung into a nine week trial which seems mostly consisted of the prosecution building an indirect and tenuous logical link between what actually occurred and the offences stated in the act. What has been left is the impression that a political decision was made to frighten political dissenters by seeking the harshest possible penalty. I would rather that had not happened, it risks bringing the justice system into disrepute.