MR JUSTICE NICKLIN Approved Judgment
MBR Acres Ltd -v- Curtin
J: The evidence at trial against Mr Curtin 144. Before turning to the individual incidents alleged against Mr Curtin, it is necessary to set them in their context and the overall questioning of Mr Curtin. 145. The protest activities fall, broadly, into what can be called pre- and post-injunction periods. Before the Interim Injunction was granted, the hallmark of the main protest activities was the obstruction, and usually surrounding, of vehicles entering or leaving the Wyton Site. That was done largely to enable the protestors to confront those accessing the Wyton Site with the protest message they wanted to deliver. Mr Curtin described this as the ‘ritual’. As part of the ‘ritual’, protestors would routinely delay entry or exit from the site. The extent of the delay varied. In the worst, pre-injunction incidents, the workers were prevented from accessing the Wyton Site for several hours, but typically the delay was only some minutes. In the Interim Injunction Judgment, I described this as the “ flashpoint ” in the protest activities. 146. After the Interim Injunction was granted, the phenomenon of protestors surrounding vehicles and delaying their access to/from the Wyton Site was largely brought to an end. This was achieved by the imposition of the Exclusion Zone as a temporary measure. After the Interim Injunction, although there are instances where it is alleged that Mr Curtin and others have obstructed vehicles entering or leaving the Wyton Site, it is nothing on the scale of what had been happening prior to the grant of the Interim Injunction. (1) The pleaded allegations against Mr Curtin 13 July 2021 147. The Claimants allege that Mr Curtin (and others) trespassed on the Access Land and obstructed vehicles driven by the First Defendant’s employees at the Wyton Site, whilst using a loudhailer to shout at those in the vehicles. Employee F was driving a white Mercedes A Class car, Employee Q was driving a black Volkswagen Polo, Jane Read was driving a green Vauxhall Mokka, and Employee AA was driving a white Seat Ibiza. 148. It is further alleged that Mr Curtin (and others), by their obstruction of the vehicles, interfered with the First Claimant’s common law right of access to the highway from the Wyton Site and caused a public nuisance by obstructing the same vehicles on the public highway. 149. The obstruction of the vehicles and Mr Curtin’s use of the loudhailer is alleged to be part of a course of conduct involving harassment of the employees involved, in particular it is alleged that Mr Curtin shouted at Ms Read: “ leave this place… are you seriously thinking that this time next year you want to be working at this hellhole… it’s your choice ”. 150. Although witness statements had been filed for Employees AA and Q, they did not give evidence at trial. 151. Employee F gave evidence at trial, and in doing so gave his name because he had been identified by some protestors. For the reasons I have explained, I have decided not to use Employee F’s name in this judgment.
107
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator