At first glance this is a sad, even shocking story. I'd like to hear from a legal eagle about how much was just the judge "doing his job", and whether it's normal common to get stitched-up like this.
Not a legal eagle, but my guess would be that the Judge wanted to specifically focus on whether the guy was guilty of causing a public nuisance and that he felt that the climate change issue was unduly emotive and might bias the Jury away from considering the actual charge and legal arguments regarding it.
In other words *why* they were causing a public nuisance was not the issue being tried, only whether or not the actions could be considered a public nuisance.
To be fair to the Judge he also gave the guy two opportunities to apologise to the Court and thus avoid a contempt charge. Unfortunately he didn't and so is learning the hard way that that is a bad idea. It's pretty much summed up here:-
He told Nixon the criminal courts were solely there to establish whether the prosecution had proven the guilt of defendants. “You said the court is not upholding what it is there to uphold,” he said. “You were wrong about that. This court is here to determine whether people have committed crimes.”
By defying his orders about what could be mentioned in court, Nixon had put that function in jeopardy and created a risk that the trial would have to be repeated, Reid said.
“Your contempt … is very serious because it represents a complete disrespect for the court and the court process,” he said. “You compounded the initial contempt by continuing to speak … I find it hard to think of a more calculated and deliberate contempt.”
This bit is really stupid:
A spokesperson for
Insulate Britain said locking people up for “telling the truth in court” was the “mark of an extreme authoritarian regime”.
“We declare that the British legal system no longer has legitimacy in our eyes,” they said.
Displays breathtaking stupidity, ignorance of the legal system and is likely to lose them support. He wasn't locked up for telling the truth, he was locked up for potentially jeopardising a trial by causing Jury bias, leading to the possible expense of a retrial. Given the scarcity of trial slots, the Judge is right to be a little peeved by this chaps arrogance.
)
