An Abingdon man has been found not guilty of interfering with key national infrastructure after taking part in a Just Stop Oil slow march in London nearly three years ago.
At a glance
| Defendant | Alexander Thornton, 22, from Abingdon |
| Other defendants | Alexis Psyllides and Joseph Clark |
| Court | Southwark Crown Court |
| Verdict | Not guilty |
| Verdict date | Wednesday 12 August 2026 |
| Original protest | A Just Stop Oil slow march on Earls Court Road in London on 15 November 2023 |
| Charge | Interference with the use or operation of key national infrastructure under section 7 of the Public Order Act 2023 |
| Maximum sentence | Up to 12 months’ imprisonment, a fine or both |
Alexander Thornton, a 22-year-old freelance visual-effects artist from Abingdon, was cleared alongside Alexis Psyllides and Joseph Clark following a trial at Southwark Crown Court.
The three had been charged under section 7 of the Public Order Act 2023 after taking part in a slow march on Earls Court Road on 15 November 2023.
Just Stop Oil said the defendants represented themselves before Judge Tomlinson and that the jury returned unanimous not-guilty verdicts after deliberating for around an hour.
The acquittal came almost two years and nine months after the protest.
What happened during the 2023 protest?
Thornton was among dozens of Just Stop Oil supporters who joined a slow march through west London as part of the group’s campaign against new oil and gas licensing.
A contemporary account published by Just Stop Oil said the march began on Cromwell Road shortly after 10.30am and continued as police began making arrests.
The group’s account said the remaining protesters had been arrested by around 11.50am.
During the trial, the prosecution alleged that the march caused significant delays while police cleared the road and arrested those involved.
Just Stop Oil said video footage presented in court showed traffic backing up along the A4 and that prosecutors relied on the disruption caused over approximately an hour and a half.
The defendants accepted that traffic had been slowed but argued that the delay attributable to their own actions was not significant. They also denied intending to cause anything beyond minor disruption.
What did the jury have to decide?
Section 7 of the Public Order Act 2023 makes it an offence to interfere with the use or operation of key national infrastructure intentionally or while being reckless about whether interference will result.
Key national infrastructure includes road transport infrastructure, covering motorways and A and B roads.
Where a protest delays the use of a road rather than preventing its use entirely, Crown Prosecution Service guidance says the delay must be significant before it falls within section 7.
The prosecution must prove every element of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. This includes the alleged interference or significant delay and the defendant’s intention or recklessness.
A jury does not normally provide written reasons for its verdict. It is therefore not possible to say whether jurors rejected the allegation of significant delay, the required intention or recklessness, or another part of the prosecution case.
The not-guilty verdict should not be described as a judicial ruling on the merits of Just Stop Oil’s climate arguments. It means the jury was not satisfied that the prosecution had proved the criminal charge against each defendant.
The legislation can be read through the official section 7 Public Order Act 2023 page.
Climate motivation discussed during trial
Just Stop Oil said the prosecution agreed that some climate evidence could be included during the trial and that the defendants were allowed to explain their reasons for taking part in the march.
According to the group, all three defendants told the court that they wanted to draw attention to climate change while causing the minimum disruption necessary to attract public attention.
The campaign said they were not permitted to rely on necessity or their climate motivations as a general legal justification for the alleged road interference.
Current Crown Prosecution Service guidance says that the ingredients of the section 7 offence generally strike the legal balance between protest rights and the rights of people affected by serious disruption.
The CPS also advises prosecutors to consider factors including the duration and scale of an obstruction, the level of delay, risks to public safety, effects on emergency vehicles and the impact on members of the public and businesses.
Further information is available through the CPS guidance on protest offences.
Thornton speaks of relief after verdict
Following the verdict, Thornton said he was grateful to the jury for considering the case.
He said: “I am immensely thankful to the jury for listening to the facts and trying our case fairly.
“To be found not guilty of the charges against us feels such an immense relief and privilege.”
He also repeated his opposition to new oil and gas development, saying: “There can be no new oil and gas drilling anywhere.”
Just Stop Oil used its statement following the verdict to renew its criticism of government policy on fossil-fuel projects.
Why section 7 was introduced
The Public Order Act became law in 2023 and created several offences aimed at forms of protest capable of causing serious disruption.
Government documents published during the Bill’s passage referred to tactics used by groups including Just Stop Oil, Extinction Rebellion and Insulate Britain.
Ministers argued that the new powers were needed to balance the right to peaceful protest with the ability of other people to travel, work and access essential services without serious disruption.
Section 7 is an either-way offence, meaning more serious cases can be tried at the Crown Court. It carries a maximum sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment, a fine or both.
CPS guidance recognises that Crown Court protest cases can take years to reach trial because of the court backlog. It advises prosecutors to consider less serious summary offences where they adequately reflect the alleged conduct and provide sufficient sentencing powers.
Case timeline
| Date | Development |
|---|---|
| 15 November 2023 | Just Stop Oil supporters take part in a slow march on the Earls Court Road and Cromwell Road corridor in west London. |
| 15 November 2023 | Thornton and other participants are arrested. |
| August 2026 | Thornton, Psyllides and Clark stand trial at Southwark Crown Court, representing themselves. |
| 12 August 2026 | The jury returns unanimous not-guilty verdicts, according to Just Stop Oil. |
FAQs
Who is Alexander Thornton?
Just Stop Oil describes Alexander Thornton as a 22-year-old freelance visual-effects artist from Abingdon.
What was he charged with?
He was charged with interfering with the use or operation of key national infrastructure under section 7 of the Public Order Act 2023.
What was the verdict?
Thornton, Alexis Psyllides and Joseph Clark were all found not guilty at Southwark Crown Court.
When did the original protest take place?
The slow march took place in west London on 15 November 2023.
Why did the case take nearly three years?
No case-specific explanation has been published. Crown Prosecution Service guidance acknowledges that Crown Court protest cases may take several years to begin because of the criminal court backlog.
Did the jury rule that the protest caused no disruption?
Not necessarily. A not-guilty verdict means the prosecution did not prove every element of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. Because juries do not give detailed reasons, it is not possible to identify which part of the case jurors rejected.
Did the verdict establish a climate-change defence?
No. Just Stop Oil said the defendants were allowed to explain their motivations and that some climate evidence was admitted, but the legal issue was whether the prosecution had proved the section 7 charge.
