MR JUSTICE NICKLIN Approved Judgment
MBR Acres Ltd -v- Curtin
Group Ltd. Ms Pressick has been closely involved in the litigation on behalf of the Claimants. Although she is based in Hull, Ms Pressick confirmed that she attends the Wyton Site most weeks. Her direct evidence of events is therefore limited, but she has played a significant role in the coordination of the evidence gathering process for the Claimants. Her witness evidence has been used as the primary vehicle for the introduction of the video evidence upon which the Claimants rely in relation to events at the Wyton Site. 135. Ms Pressick confirmed that, on occasions, she had been shouted at by protestors when she has visited the Wyton Site. In cross-examination she accepted that the protestors were not shouting at her, personally, but because she was perceived to be an employee of the First Claimant. One of the things that Ms Pressick recalled being shouted was “ puppy killer ”. Questioned by Mr Curtin, Ms Pressick said that she did not understand why the protestors shouted that at people going to and from the Wyton Site. Mr Curtin put it to her that it was because dogs were euthanised at the site in a process that was termed “ terminal bleeding ”. Ms Pressick accepted that on occasions that happened, but she maintained that being called a “ puppy killer ” was not a pleasant experience. Mr Curtin asked Ms Pressick about the impact of this upon her: Q: Do you take it personally, or do you take it ‘They’re calling me that because I work here?’ … A: You take it personally, because we do everything we can do correctly… Q: Have you ever been specifically pointed out, ‘That’s the puppy killer’? A: No, as I described before, it’s all of us, when we’re moving around on and off site. Q: And in a form of legitimate protest, can you have any understanding… of why that would be a legitimate thing for a protestor to shout outside a very controversial beagle breeding establishment? A: I can understand the peaceful protest and the need for emotion to explain what the protestors are saying. It’s still difficult to accept being shouted at. 136. In her witness evidence, Ms Pressick dealt with the, very limited, protest activity at the B&K Site in Hull. 137. Following the Wolverhampton decision, the Claimants were given the opportunity to file further evidence relevant to their claim for a contra mundum ‘newcomer’ injunction. Ms Pressick provided a further witness statement, dated 19 March 2024. (2) Wendy Jarrett 138. The Claimants filed a witness statement for trial, dated 25 January 2023, from Wendy Jarrett, who attended to give evidence. Ms Jarrett is the Chief Executive of Understanding Animal Research (“UAR”). Ms Jarrett explained that UAR is a not-for-profit organisation that exists to explain to the public and policymakers why animals are used in medical and scientific research. UAR is funded by Marshall BioResources, the parent company of the First and Third Claimants; the Medical
105
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator