Daniel Graham, 39, and Adam Carruthers, 32, have been jailed over the felling of the popular UK landmark, the Sycamore Gap tree in Northumberland – they offered a pathetic excuse
The two vandals who chopped down the popular Sycamore Gap tree have claimed that it was a drunken prank as they offered an underwhelming excuse for the infamous felling.
Daniel Graham, 39, and Adam Carruthers, 32, who wrecked the Northumberland landmark have been put behind bars for four years and three months after they were convicted of two counts of criminal damage.
Despite their defence claiming the act was “no more than drunken stupidity”, neither the prosecution nor the judge were convinced. Prosecutors pointed out that the felling took an immense amount of planning – with the day of the crime ultimately being chosen based on the weather – a storm which meant there was little chance of witnesses.
Andrew Gurney, lawyer for Adam Carruthers, however said he could not offer a “better explanation”. He said: “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.”
READ MORE: Sycamore Gap sentencing LIVE as Daniel Graham and Adam Carruthers jailed
Mrs Justice Lambert sentenced the pair and said she was sure Carruthers felled the tree and Graham drove them to the scene and filmed it. The judge didn’t believe Carruthers was drunk and did not believe Graham simply went along with his actions. “I’m quite sure that you are both equally culpable for the felling of the tree and the damage to the wall,” she said.
Richard Wright KC, prosecuting, said there was a “high degree of premeditation”, and said that the pair had boasted about going viral after the act. 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 court heard that the tree was valued at around £500,000 for the purposes of the sentencing guidelines, down from the initial £622,000 estimate. There was also a theft of a large quantity of logs which were cut up with a chainsaw.
Wright added: “The felling was carried out in deliberate and professional way. It was marked with spray paint and it fell across the wall. The night was chosen because of the weather, the high wind made it easier which Mr Graham said in evidence. Both have not admitted it in the sense that it went on a mission, but both say they were unaware they had done it because they were intoxicated.
“We say they are unwilling to engage on their criminality and they were sober and determined to do what they did on that night. The proposition that one was so drunk is we submit fanciful, as was Mr Graham saying he only knew it was serious when the blade hit the tree.
“They had walked 20 minutes with the equipment from the car park. The felling was to lead to the complete destruction of the tree and the landscape where it stood. There has been high degree of damage, in a wider societal sense.”