Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Sycamore Gap Tree latest.
Comments
-
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.
0 -
gringo 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?
0 -
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?0
-
MrOneLung said:It's a fucking tree
Meanwhile, youths carrying knives just get warnings/community service8 -
southamptonaddick said:MrOneLung said:It's a fucking tree
Meanwhile, youths carrying knives just get warnings/community service0 -
Similar case in Ireland last year but they only got tree years.6
-
RodneyCharltonTrotta said:Similar case in Ireland last year but they only got tree years.4
-
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.2 -
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.0 -
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.
1 - Sponsored links:
-
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 causedto 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.0 -
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.0 -
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 causedto 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.
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.0 -
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.
I bought a house once with a tree/TPO in the garden1 -
"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.2 -
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.
2 -
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.10 -
eaststandmike said: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.
I bought a house once with a tree/TPO in the garden0 -
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 causedto 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.
Just apply the law based on the evidence. The wider public should have no say in that.1 -
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.
If you want to view van Gogh's Sunflowers painting you can. If you want to visit the sycamore tree, you can't.4 - Sponsored links:
-
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.
If you want to view van Gogh's Sunflowers painting you can. If you want to visit the sycamore tree, you can't.1 -
Chizz said: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.https://youtu.be/raNGeq3_DtM?si=GrGfgzRBtjntWjAf
0 -
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.
If you want to view van Gogh's Sunflowers painting you can. If you want to visit the sycamore tree, you can't.0 -
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 causedto 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.
Just apply the law based on the evidence. The wider public should have no say in that.0 -
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 causedto 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.
Just apply the law based on the evidence. The wider public should have no say in that.1 -
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 causedto 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.
Just apply the law based on the evidence. The wider public should have no say in that.
An appeal would likely fail, expensively, unless it can be shown the Judge did not apply sentencing guidelines appropriately or properly. He clearly did.0 -
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 causedto 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.
Just apply the law based on the evidence. The wider public should have no say in that.
An appeal would likely fail, expensively, unless it can be shown the Judge did not apply sentencing guidelines appropriately or properly. He clearly did.
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?0 -
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 causedto 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.
Just apply the law based on the evidence. The wider public should have no say in that.
An appeal would likely fail, expensively, unless it can be shown the Judge did not apply sentencing guidelines appropriately or properly. He clearly did.
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?1 -
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 causedto 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.
Just apply the law based on the evidence. The wider public should have no say in that.
An appeal would likely fail, expensively, unless it can be shown the Judge did not apply sentencing guidelines appropriately or properly. He clearly did.
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?
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?"2 -
The point I've been striving to make all along is the danger in factoring public opinion to sentencing when the public aren't fully appraised of the case facts and are relying on other sources for the information that shapes their views. That's a general point. If our legal system allows for that, then the answer to your question is no.
What I will say to conclude my point is that I expect most judges think they've applied sentencing guidelines appropriately or properly, and yet sentences can and do get reduced on appeal. Hallam's did (the JSO protestor) from 5 years to 4. Were the guidelines there applied properly in the first instance? Seems not, or else why was it reduced. I guess we'll only know the answer in this case should an appeal be lodged, but you've already made you mind up. I'll wait to see.0