A Just Stop Oil activist and GP who compared his conduct to that of the Suffragettes has been suspended from medical practice again after a tribunal concluded he had shown no remorse over damaging a petrol station.
Dr Patrick Hart said Britain’s “draconian” laws meant he was no longer able to take part in protests.
Hart used a hammer and chisel during a 2022 Just Stop Oil action to damage 16 Esso fuel pumps beside the M25.
Although the protest resulted in a prison sentence, he declined to express regret for what he did. He said he would not join further demonstrations because he did not want to “spend the rest of his life in prison”.
The doctor has drawn parallels between himself and the Suffragettes, arguing that they are now celebrated despite using comparable tactics in their fight against laws they regarded as unjust.
The outspoken GP, who has made appearances on Good Morning Britain, received a 12-month jail term over the 2022 Just Stop Oil protest that disrupted a service station on the M25.
At a professional tribunal hearing, Hart said he joined the action because he believed he had exhausted other options in confronting the climate “crisis”. He also said heatwave conditions were placing “increased pressure” on the NHS.
He had previously told a court that he “regrets nothing”, while citing the actions of historic figures including Martin Luther King Jr and Nelson Mandela before the Tribunal.
The Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service, or MPTS, suspended him from practising for 10 months last year.
Dr Patrick Hart, a GP with the Bridge View Medical group in South Bristol, used a hammer and chisel to crack the display panels on 16 Esso petrol pumps in Thurrock, Essex.
Now, he has been suspended from practising for a further ten months after a panel found he showed a ‘contempt both for certain laws and the Tribunal process, having made it clear that he thought both were wrong to be punishing him’.
He qualified as a doctor in 2010 and was a practising GP at Bridge View Medical Practice in Bristol at the time of the protest, the tribunal heard.
Dr Hart took part in a Just Stop Oil protest in April 2022, where he climbed onto the pipework at the Exolum Pumping Station and disrupted the storage and transportation of fuel.
He was fined £500 for that offence and was on bail.
Then in August 2022, he took part in another protest at Esso Service Station in Thurrock, Essex, where he used a hammer and orange spray paint to damage the petrol pumps.
This led to the closure of the forecourt on the M25 and left three-quarters of the petrol pumps out of action for 24 hours.
Dr Hart was convicted at Chelmsford Crown Court, Essex, of criminal damage to property valued at £11,000 and the judge deemed this was contempt of court.
He was jailed for a year with the judge deeming the offences were ‘deliberate’ and were committed while he was on bail.
In May 2023, he invaded the pitch during the Premiership Rugby Final at Twickenham and threw orange-coloured cornflour around, as part of a wave of Just Stop Oil protests at major sporting events at the time.
Activists from protest group Just Stop Oil blocked the entrance to the Esso after damaging pumps at the filling station at Thurrock Services on the M25 in Essex in 2022
READ MORE: Giant Waterspout Approaches Tourist Boat as Storms Hit Italy
He was later found not guilty of causing criminal damage to the pitch at Twickenham.
Dr Hart referred himself to the General Medical Council in September of that year.
An MPTS tribunal was held in 2025, and the panel decided to suspend Dr Hart for ten months.
He was suspended for another ten months in a new tribunal having given no new evidence and showing ‘no remorse’ for his actions.
The tribunal heard: ‘He told the Tribunal that there was an impasse as he was committed to his position that he acted in good faith and with integrity.
‘He said that the suffragettes, now celebrated in society, acted in a similar way to resist unjust laws and effect change.’
The doctor refused to say that his actions were ‘wrong’ and he said that he had ‘dignity’, knowing he didn’t back down from his conviction.
The panel said: ‘Dr Hart said that he had taken no further part in climate activism that risks arrest because he does not want to spend the rest of his life in prison and the imposition of draconian laws restricting protest has made it ineffectual.
In May 2023, Hart invaded the pitch during the Premiership Rugby Final at Twickenham and threw orange-coloured cornflour around
‘He said that he does not have access to resources to properly maintain his skills and knowledge other than reading for his own interest but that, in any case, he had no interest in providing such evidence to the Tribunal while it would find him impaired because of his lack of insight.
‘Dr Hart said that, despite being an otherwise law abiding citizen, to act with integrity included sometimes choosing to break certain laws in the interest of effecting change.
‘He said that the recent heatwaves in the UK and Europe had put an increased pressure on health services and that this would continue to get worse.’
The panel added: ‘The Tribunal considered that Dr Hart’s opinions regarding climate change were sincere and deeply held.
‘However, it considered that he had shown no insight into the negative impact of his misconduct or conviction on public confidence or on the profession.
‘Dr Hart was candid in stating his position that he believed he had done nothing wrong and that he was at an impasse with his regulator.
‘The Tribunal considered that Dr Hart had shown contempt both for certain laws and the Tribunal process, having made it clear that he thought both were wrong to be punishing him.
‘The Tribunal determined that Dr Hart had demonstrated no insight into his misconduct and conviction, despite his belief that his insight was excellent.
‘The Tribunal noted that Dr Hart had indicated his main reason for attending this hearing or a subsequent review was to use the public forum to express his views on the climate crisis.
‘The Tribunal considered that this reflected its earlier finding that Dr Hart had demonstrated contempt in some circumstances for both the law and this Tribunal.
‘Despite this, the Tribunal considered that erasure would be disproportionate to Dr Hart at his first review hearing.’