Vandals who cut down Sycamore Gap tree sentenced in England to more than 4 years in prison
The tree stood for nearly 150 years before Daniel Graham and Adam Carruthers set out on dark and stormy night to carry out what a prosecutor called a 'moronic mission' to fell the majestic sycamore, which crashed down onto Hadrian's Wall.
Graham, 39, and Carruthers, 32, were each convicted of two counts of criminal damage — one for destroying the tree, the other for damaging the ancient wall.
Justice Christina Lambert sentenced the pair each to four years and three months in prison during the hearing at Newcastle Crown Court.
The tree, perched in a saddle between two hills, had been known to locals for its scenic setting, but became famous after a cameo in Kevin Costner's 1991 film 'Robin Hood: Prince Of Thieves.' It drew tourists, lovers, landscape photographers and those who spread the ashes of loved ones. It was voted English 'Tree of the Year' in 2016.
The two men had long denied cutting down the tree, but changed their tune as they faced their fate.
They both testified at trial that they had nothing to do with the vandalism, but a prosecutor said that they eventually admitted to the crime and blamed booze for the act.
Prosecutor Richard Wright said that it was a 'fanciful proposition' that they didn't intend to cut down the tree along Hadrian's Wall or realize what they were doing until it was too late.
'The court can be sure they were sober, prepared and planned to do what they did,' Wright said. He said that the pair should serve prison sentences between 18 months and four years.
The illegal felling in Northumberland National Park on Sept. 28, 2023, caused instant outrage and news quickly spread beyond the ancient wall built by Emperor Hadrian in A.D. 122 to protect the northwest frontier of the Roman Empire.
It wasn't Britain's biggest or oldest tree, but the sycamore was prized for its picturesque setting, symmetrically planted between two hills along the wall that is a UNESCO World Heritage Site.
'This iconic tree can never be replaced,' Andrew Poad, general manager of the heritage and nature conservation charity National Trust, said in a statement read in court by a prosecutor. 'It belonged to the people. It was a totemic symbol for many; a destination to visit whilst walking Hadrian's Wall, a place to make memories, take photos in all seasons; but it was also a place of sanctuary."
One man wielded a chainsaw while the other captured the felling on grainy video on a cellphone. Prosecutors couldn't say who cut down the tree and who memorialized the senseless act, but both were equally culpable.
In less than three minutes, the tree that had stood nearly 150 years crashed to the ground.
Carruthers will have to carry the burden for his actions like a 'form of personal penance,' attorney Andrew Gurney said.
'It was no more than drunken stupidity,' Gurney said, 'and something he would regret for the rest of his life.'
At trial, the two men — once the best of friends who have fallen out since their arrests — testified they were at their respective homes on the night of the crime and downplayed their expertise working with chainsaws.
But evidence shown to the jury implicated both men.
Graham's Range Rover was near the tree around the time it fell. Video of the felling was found on his phone — with metadata showing that it was shot at the location of the tree.
As digital data showed Graham's vehicle on its way back to where the two lived about 40 minutes away, Carruthers got a text from his girlfriend with footage of their 12-day-old son.
'I've got a better video than that,' Carruthers replied.
The jury didn't hear evidence of a motive for the crime, but Wright suggested in his closing argument that the two had been on a 'moronic mission' and cut down the tree as a joke.
'They woke up the morning after and ... it must have dawned on them that they couldn't see anyone else smiling,' Wright said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
37 minutes ago
- The Sun
Joey Barton ordered to pay eye-watering sum towards Jeremy Vine's legal costs after their libel battle
FORMER footballer Joey Barton has been ordered to pay more than £200,000 of broadcaster Jeremy Vine's legal costs after their libel battle. The BBC Radio 2 presenter, 60, had sued for libel and harassment over posts on X falsely calling him a 'big bike nonce ' and a 'paedo defender'. 2 2 The pair settled last year as Barton, 42, posted two apologies on X and paid £110,000 in damages. A court hearing in London yesterday heard Barton had agreed to pay £160,000 of Vine's costs. But Vine wanted a further £60,000 for costs over negotiating that sum. Suzanner Holmes, for Barton, said that the request was 'excessive'. She said it should be reduced. But Vine's representative Kevin Latham said Barton had 'repeatedly failed to engage in proper negotiation'. The court ruled Barton should pay £43,172.20 to add to the £160,000. Neither Barton nor Vine attended the hearing in London. Shamed Joey Barton GUILTY of kicking wife in head as their kids slept upstairs
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Liverpool parade driver, 53, accused of deliberately driving car into crowd of football fans has trial date set
The man accused of deliberately driving a car into a crowd of Liverpool football fans has had his trial date set. Paul Doyle, 53, appeared in court today charged with seven offences including dangerous driving and causing grievous bodily harm with intent. The father-of-three is said to have used his car 'deliberately as a weapon' to strike people walking back from a football parade in Liverpool city centre on May 26. Doyle faces charges relating to six victims, including two children aged 11 and 17, after a total of 109 people were injured. He is due to stand trial at Liverpool Crown Court on November 24 with the hearing estimated to last four weeks, the BBC has reported. Doyle appeared in court today via video link from prison for a case management hearing. The former royal marine spoke only to confirm his name and that he could hear what was being said. He has not yet entered a plea for any of the charges. During a previous hearing at Liverpool Magistrates Court, Doyle shook his head as the seven charges were read out. Judge Healey said the investigation was in the 'very early stages,' adding: 'There is a real prospect of further charges and extensive inquiries need to be concluded. 'I am satisfied this is a truly exceptional case. It shocked and outraged the people of Liverpool and beyond.' Around 50 people were taken to hospital following the incident on the evening of May 26. Distressing footage posted online shows supporters banging on the car's windows before it accelerated and hit fans at speed, causing several to be catapulted off the bonnet. Police quickly ruled out terrorism as a motive and went public with some details of the suspect. Detective Superintendent Rachel Wilson previously said: 'This is a complex and constantly evolving investigation and we are still working through and assessing those reporting being injured and our enquiries remain ongoing. 'I would continue to appeal for anyone who has information and is yet to come forward to please get in touch as a matter of urgency.' She added: 'As a person has now been charged in connection with this incident, I would like to remind people not to speculate or share information or footage which could in any way jeopardise the case. 'We understand that emotions are still running high, and people are seeking answers, but it is vital that we allow the matter to go through the judicial process.'
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
EXCLUSIVE Baby killer Constance Marten set to appeal using legal aid, despite case already costing taxpayers £2.8m
Aristocrat Constance Marten is set to appeal her conviction for killing her baby in a case which has already cost taxpayers over £2.8million. The 38-year-old former socialite, who has a £2.4million fortune, plans to claim yet more legal aid to challenge the jury's verdict in her retrial, despite the Court of Appeal rejecting an earlier bid to clear her name. In an extraordinary farce, Marten is expected to appeal on the basis that the trial judge did not warn the jury quickly enough to ignore her own words after she blurted out that her lover Mark Gordon, 51, was a convicted rapist. The Mail understands that her lawyers will contend that the Recorder of London 's handling of Marten's bombshell admission unfairly prejudiced the jury. Gordon is set to follow suit, despite praising the fairness of Judge Mark Lucraft during the trial and promising he would 'waive' his right to appeal. The Old Bailey retrial almost collapsed when Marten revealed that Gordon had spent 22 years in prison for a knifepoint rape in Florida. Judge Lucraft had previously imposed reporting restrictions on Gordon's convictions as a teenager for armed kidnapping, four sexual assaults, armed burglary and aggravated battery. But Marten ignored the ban, claiming that police were out to get them when officers launched a national manhunt to find the couple after they went on the run with their fifth baby Victoria, causing her death in a freezing tent in 2023. Marten told jurors their four older children had already been taken into care, adding: 'Mark has a violent rape conviction and spent 22 years in prison so my fear is they'd immediately scapegoat him which is what they usually do.' The judge condemned Marten's 'deliberate attempt to sabotage the trial', but he decided to continue with the case after Gordon insisted 'I'm not worried about prejudice' and promised not to appeal on the matter. In a ruling which was never made public, Judge Lucraft said: 'Many questions arise. Amongst them I raised the question of what would happen down the line on an appeal if there was a conviction of the first defendant (Gordon) in these circumstances? 'At this point Mr Gordon said he wished to address the Court. 'When he did so he said he would waive any point on any appeal and was quite satisfied that any direction to the jury would be fair and that he wished the trial to continue. 'Mr Gordon spoke about the delay and the cost to the public of another trial.' Yet just moments after being convicted, Gordon went back on his word, vowing that he would appeal the verdict and yelling: 'I'm not surprised by the verdict. It was faulty, it was unlawful. This is not over, it has just begun.' Marten shouted: 'It's a scam', before walking out of the court in fury. The case has already cost taxpayers more than £2.8million, including the £1.2million investigation and £1.6million estimated legal costs. In February, the Court of Appeal rejected the couple's bid to challenge their child cruelty conviction in the first trial, which ended last year with jurors unable to reach a verdict on manslaughter. On Monday, the couple were finally convicted of manslaughter in a retrial and will be sentenced on September 15. The unprecedented case is now the subject of a national child safeguarding review to consider whether new laws should be brought in to protect unborn children. Detective Superintendent Lewis Basford, who led the case, believes that lives could be saved if officers had the power to bring in protection and family contact orders before a baby is born to parents considered at high risk of harming their children. He said: 'At the moment police are powerless to protect that child until a baby draws their first breath. 'If there was a change in the law, we could put contact orders in place to monitor the pregnancy and protection orders could be in place before that child is born so they could immediately be taken into care. 'If you look at cases like Baby P [a 17-month-old British boy who died in London in 2007 after suffering over 50 injuries] this could save lives.' Yesterday a Department for Education spokesman said the review would look at what more could be done to help prevent future tragedies. She said: 'Victoria's life was cut devastatingly short by those who should have been caring for her - and it is right that justice has now been served.'
