MR JUSTICE NICKLIN Approved Judgment
MBR Acres Ltd -v- Curtin
Research Council and other bodies including the Wellcome Trust, the British Heart Foundation and Cancer Research. 139. Whilst Ms Jarrett’s evidence was generally helpful in explaining the current UK legislation regarding animal research, I struggled to see the relevance that it had to the issues I must decide. Ms Bolton suggested that it was evidence that would explain the harm to medical research in this country were the First (and Third) Defendant to cease trading, thereby interrupting or curtailing the supply of beagles for clinical trials. 140. It was a feature at the trial that it was necessary, on several occasions, to remind Mr Curtin that he was not required (not was it relevant for him) to prove that the use of animals in medical research was “wrong”. I appreciate why he feels the need to do so. That is a product of the adversarial process in which Mr Curtin feels the need to defend his actions. But the Claimants do not dispute that he, and the other protestors, have a sincerely held belief that animal testing – and the First and Third Claimant’s role in supplying dogs for animal testing – is wrong (see [29] above). By the same token, it is equally irrelevant for the Claimants to attempt, in these proceedings, to show that animal testing is “ right ” or that Mr Curtin’s beliefs are “ wrong ”. Most of Ms Jarrett’s evidence falls into this category, and is irrelevant to the issues that I must decide. 141. Even on the narrow issue identified by Ms Bolton – the consequences to medical research were the First (and Third) Defendants to be put out of business – I struggle to see its relevance. If the Defendants’ protest activities are lawful – yet they lead to the First and Third Defendants going out of business – the harm that that might cause (which is highly speculative in any event) is not a basis on which the Court could curtail or limit otherwise lawful acts of protest. If the Defendants’ protest activities are unlawful, then the Court will grant appropriate remedies to provide adequate redress whether or not harm might be caused to medical research in this country. (3) David Manning 142. Mr Manning is employed by the First Claimant. He is a security guard at the Wyton Site. Although Mr Manning has only been employed by the First Claimant since June 2022, he has been a security guard at the site since 2014, having been previously employed by a contractor that used to provide security services at the Wyton Site. The contractor continues to provide other security guards at the site, but Mr Manning is now employed directly by the First Claimant to supervise the security team. As a result of that history, Mr Manning has had a direct involvement with the activities of the protestors from the start. If there is one employee of the First Claimant who has been in the ‘front line’, it is Mr Manning. 143. In his evidence, Mr Manning noted that because of the escalation of the protests, there is now a need for him to be supported by a security team of between four and ten guards. Mr Manning carries out a risk assessment on a day-to-day basis to determine how many of his team he will need. He also reviews CCTV footage and uses the cameras to monitor the protestors. In his witness statement, Mr Manning has identified the key incidents relied upon by the Claimants by reference to the CCTV footage that is available.
106
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator