MR JUSTICE NICKLIN Approved Judgment
MBR Acres Ltd -v- Curtin
stopped for a period when leaving or entering the Wyton Site the occupants became a “ captive audience ” to the protest message. He denied that he was intending to harass any of the employees of the First Claimant. He had not threatened any of them. Mr Curtin accepted that he was using a loudhailer. Ms Bolton put it to him that he was “ directing abuse directly at Employee F’s car ”. Mr Curtin disputed that it was abuse; he stated that he was communicating the protest slogans. 164. Mr Bolton put it to Mr Curtin that he was confronting the employees with his protest message, using a loudhailer, to try and get them to leave their jobs. Mr Curtin answered: “ If they were to leave their job, I’d be pleased for them, but there’s no coercion, there’s no intimidation, absolutely none ”. 165. The video evidence shows that passage out of the Wyton Site was not free. As well as being delayed by those protestors who were standing in front of or near to the vehicles, in turn, each driver, would have had his/her view of the carriageway obstructed by people standing next to his/her vehicle. Mr Curtin accepted in cross-examination that, in this respect, he was inferring with each vehicle’s access to the highway. He made clear that that had not been his intention at the time. This was Mr Curtin’s reflection upon being asked this question in cross-examination. He said: “I’m there, and because I’m there, if I’m standing there as a protestor and I’m in some way impairing a perfect view it I wasn’t there, then yes. But these thoughts were not in my mind, and they’re more likely – they should have been in the mind of the police officer really… If it had been pointed out to me, I would have been more than happy – because my job that day was to protest and it wasn’t to endanger anyone. I wouldn’t have wanted that.” And a little later, in answer to Ms Bolton putting to him that he was standing in position which would have obstructed the driver’s view to the right when entering the carriageway, Mr Curtin replied: “I accept – I don’t want to be funny – I’m accepting I’m not transparent. The driver would have to – might have to move their neck out or their head… they should not move onto a highway if they can’t see. And if that had been relayed to anyone at the time, it would have been part of the police liaison procedure… My aim here is to protest, and only protest, and do it safely and do it legally and do it well.” 166. On closer analysis of the video footage of this incident, it appears that Ms Bolton’s point on obstruction of Employee F’s view along the carriageway is more theoretical than real. I asked her to identify the moment, on the CCTV, at which she alleged that Mr Curtin was blocking Employee F’s view along the carriageway. At the point she identified, a police officer, who was attempting the guide Employee F’s vehicle out of the Wyton Site was standing in front of the vehicle. The reality of this situation is that whilst Mr Curtin might have been obstructing, for a matter of moments, Employee F’s view down the carriageway, the reality is that his/her attention would have been on the police officer in front of his vehicle. The point had not been explored in Employee F’s evidence, so it is difficult to reach any firm conclusions beyond the fact that any obstruction of Employee F’s view along the carriageway could only have been for a matter of moments.
111
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator