MR JUSTICE NICKLIN Approved Judgment
MBR Acres Ltd -v- Curtin
people? Look.’ I understand this statement and recording to be an attempt to identify myself and those travelling with me in my car…”
156. Employee F then described an incident with another protestor in which the protestor represented that the law required Employee F to ask him/her to move out of the way. That was a misapprehension as to the law, but it was one that a police officer in attendance appeared to adopt. Employee F continued:
“The protestors obstructing my vehicle, filming me and trying to film inside my vehicle and shouting at us made me feel intimidated and anxious and is a huge distraction from concentrating on the road while driving… I felt annoyed that the protestors were delaying me getting home, especially whilst making demands that I gesture to them to move and insisting to the police that they needed to ask me to do that. I also felt stressed prior to leaving the Wyton Site because I knew I would get delayed trying to get out of the Wyton Site, as I usually had to wait for the police to move the protestors out of the way. The protestors were scaring, threatening and intimidating me, and I believe their aim is to stop me coming back to the Wyton Site and to make me get a different job.”
157. Employee F was cross examined by Mr Curtin. Employee F was a careful and impressive witness. S/he generally gave considered answers to the questions s/he was asked. I accept his/her evidence. Both in his/her witness statement, and confirmed in cross-examination, Employee F said that, in respect of the pre-injunction phase, s/he was frustrated by the lack of police action and thought that the police could have done more to help the employees entering and leaving the Wyton Site. Mr Curtin asked Employee F about his/her being terrified by the actions of the protestors. Employee F said: “ there’s always the aspect of terror because, as far as I’m concerned, the behaviour of the protestors is uncertain ”. 158. In cross-examination, Employee F confirmed that, at some point prior to the injunction being granted, anti-terrorism police came to the First Claimant and gave a presentation to the staff. The talk covered issues including car and letter bombs and was designed to support staff and raise awareness. Employee F confirmed that s/he found the information alarming and distressing. 159. In his/her witness statement, Employee F had identified thirteen protestors, including Mr Curtin, by name, whom he was able to identify as having been involved in the protests. S/he said that there were “ other protestors at the Wyton Site who [s/he] recognise by sight, but who are just making their views known, and not doing anything especially ‘wrong’ (for example, they have never surrounded or obstructed [his/her] car ”. Mr Curtin asked Employee F what s/he thought that Mr Curtin had done wrong. Employee F said that there had been times when Mr Curtin had “ verbally abused [him/her] and other colleagues ” by “ name-calling ”. Employee F gave as examples of “ monster ” and “ puppy killer ”. Employee F believed that this was behaviour was “ wrong ”. Mr Curtin asked Employee F whether s/he could appreciate that, in the context of a demonstration, such terms as “ puppy killer ” could be regarded as legitimate. Employee F agreed that “ everyone’s entitled to their own opinion ”. Nevertheless, Employee F maintained that s/he took the comment personally. 160. Mr Curtin established the following matters with Employee F. Employee F was aware that under the terminal bleeding procedures, some dogs did die at the Wyton Site.
109
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator