Judges uphold London rampage sentence

Demonstrators who take part in mob violence were warned to expect “significant” sentences by judges yesterday as they rejected a plea by Pink Floyd guitarist David Gilmour’s son that a 16-month jail term imposed after he went on a drink and drug-fuelled rampage at a student fees protest was “unduly harsh”.

Three Court of Appeal judges ruled that the penalty handed out to 21-year-old Charlie Gilmour could not arguably be described as either “manifestly excessive or wrong in principle”.

Lord Justice Hughes, sitting with two others in London, ruled that the sentence passed in July on the Cambridge University history student, of Billingshurst, West Sussex, “correctly took account both of the defendant’s serious and dangerous acts in this inflammatory context and of his normal character”.

He announced: “We do not believe that violence in this context and of the kind displayed by this defendant can normally be met by other than significant sentences of immediate custody, even for those of otherwise good character.”

The judges pointed out that the law protects the right of people to demonstrate – to “make known and in public their feelings on matters of public concern” – but to do so in large numbers “carries clear responsibilities, principally … to act without disorder or violence which puts the public at risk”.

Lord Justice Hughes said: “It is an unavoidable feature of mass disorder that each individual act, whatever might be its character taken on its own, inflames and encourages others to behave similarly, and that the harm done to the public stems from the combined effect of what is done en masse.”

Gilmour, who admitted violent disorder in last December’s events, was seen hanging from a union flag on the Cenotaph and leaping on to the bonnet of a car that formed part of a royal convoy.