One of the two people found guilty of cutting down the famous Sycamore Gap tree has admitted why he did it. The pair who felled the tree in what prosecutors called a “moronic mission” were sentenced on Tuesday afternoon.
Former friends Daniel Graham, 39, and Adam Carruthers, 32, were convicted of criminal damage to the much-loved tree, which had stood for more than 100 years in a fold in the landscape. They were also convicted of criminal damage to Hadrian’s Wall, caused when the sycamore fell on the ancient monument.
They were each jailed for four years and three months at Newcastle Crown Court by Mrs Justice Lambert on Tuesday afternoon after they were convicted of two counts of criminal damage. During her sentencing remarks, she said she could now be sure that Adam Carruthers cut the Sycamore Gap tree down while Daniel Graham filmed him, after admissions they had both made in pre-sentence reports.
She told the defendants: “At the trial in May neither of you accepted any involvement. In recent interviews with the Probation Service, although seeking to minimise your culpability, you admitted being present and involved.
“I can now be sure you, Adam Carruthers, were the person who felled the tree and you, Daniel Graham, assisted and encouraged him by driving there and back and not least by filming it on your phone.”
She said the defendants’ motivation for felling the Sycamore Gap tree was still not clear.
She told them: “Adam Carruthers, you told a probation officer you had no idea why you carried out the crime and could offer no explanation. You said you had drunk a bottle of whisky after a tough day and everything was a blur.
“Daniel Graham, as during the trial, your main focus seemed to be to heap as much blame as possible on your co-defendant. You now accept you were present but blame him for what happened that night.”
The judge went on to say: “You told the probation officer it was ‘(Carruthers’) dream and his show’ and you just went along with it.”
The pair had already been held in custody following their trial in May. Ahead of the judge passing her sentence, Andrew Gurney, for Adam Carruthers, said his client had finally offered a motive for chopping down the tree.
He said: “He has made admissions in his Pre-Sentence Report. He does wish to cleanse his conscience of what he has done.
“People want to know ‘Why? Why did you conduct this mindless act?’ Unfortunately, it is no more than drunken stupidity.
“He felled that tree and it is something he will regret for the rest of his life. There’s no better explanation than that.”
Mr Gurney said Carruthers was a good father, a hard-worker and hitherto, was of good character. This act of criminal damage was “anathema” to him, Mr Gurney said.
“That is not the sort of person he is, or wants to be,” he said. “He does wish to make good on that on his release. He hopes, by his actions moving forward, he can repay what he has done, in some way.”
He said earlier: “Mr Carruthers is someone who is going to have to bear the burden of what he has done for the rest of his life. He is a man of previous good character. That is gone.
“He will forever be linked to this act. He will have to carry this as some form of personal penance.”
However, in her sentencing remarks, the judge said she did not accept the drink excuse: “Although there may be grains of truth in what you said, I do not accept your explanations are wholly honest or the whole story.
“Adam Carruthers, your account that you had so much to drink that you had no memory of what happened is not plausible. The tree felling demonstrated skill and required deliberate and co-ordinated actions by you… It was not the work of someone whose actions were significantly impaired through drink.
“Nor, Daniel Graham, do I accept you just went along with your co-defendant. You filmed the whole event, you took photos of the chainsaw and wedge of trunk in the boot of your Range Rover. The next day, you appeared to revel in coverage of your actions in the media. This is not the behaviour of someone who is shocked and horrified by what has happened.”
The judge said one of the main reasons for the offence appeared to be “sheer bravado”.
She told the defendants: “Felling the tree in the middle of the night in a storm gave you some sort of thrill. You revelled in the coverage, taking pride in what you have done, knowing you were responsible for the crime so many people were talking about. Whether that was the sole explanation for what you did, I do not know, however I know you are both equally culpable.”
The judge said the tree had become a “place of special personal significance where marriages were proposed and tributes to loved ones were left”. She added: “It was a place of peace and tranquility to which people returned again and again.”
The judge said there had been “an extraordinary social impact” to the offence and that it had caused “widespread distress”.
Before the sentencing, Richard Wright KC, prosecuting, said there was a “high degree of planning and premeditation”.
He told the court: “This was an expedition which required significant planning in terms of taking a vehicle, driving for about 40 minutes to a car park, taking with them appropriate specialist equipment, carrying the equipment for about 20 minutes’ walk in each direction. The felling was carried out in a deliberate, professional way.”
Mr Wright said the prosecution alleged that the night was selected because of the weather and Daniel Graham had said during the trial it was easier to fell a tree in high winds.
Mr Wright said that in their pre-sentence reports, both defendants “now appear to have admitted their role in felling the tree, in the sense they both admit they went on the mission”. He told the court they denied intending for the tree to be cut down, either saying they were intoxicated or that they “didn’t believe it would happen until it did”.
Mr Wright said: “The prosecution rejects these late admissions… The court can be sure they were sober and prepared to do what they did.”
He said one of the aggravating factors was the site’s heritage status and the defendants’ attempts to avoid detection. Mr Wright said they knew other people, including a young boy, had been arrested in connection with the offence and were “closely following (the investigation) when they knew they were responsible”.
The prosecutor said the two offences were committed jointly by both defendants throughout. Mrs Justice Lambert asked if Mr Wright would consider a four-year sentence sufficient.
He said it was not for the Crown to suggest a specific sentence, but the guidelines provided “headroom” for the judge to take the starting point of 18 months and then lengthen the jail term when considering aggravating factors.
Chris Knox, defending Daniel Graham, said: “He is a troubled man who has had very real difficulties in his life, which have not all been of his own making.”
Mr Knox said Graham, a groundworker, had set up a “proper business which paid tax and did all the appropriate things”. His home, and the business he operated from it, were attacked after he was remanded in custody, including having windows broken, the barrister said.
Graham had also received hate mail which showed “very unpleasant, malign intent towards him,” Mr Knox said. He included four character references for the judge to consider.
Referring to a previous depressive illness that Daniel Graham had suffered from, which resulted in him going to hospital, Mrs Justice Lambert said she had been told that the condition was in remission.
Mr Knox agreed and said that he was not asking the judge to give Graham a discounted sentence, but he reaffirmed that the defendant was “a man who has had difficulties”. Mr Knox said Graham will have to rebuild his life when he is eventually released, adding: “He will have to rely on his friends to get himself re-established.”
