MR JUSTICE NICKLIN Approved Judgment
MBR Acres Ltd -v- Curtin
17 July 2021 170. The Claimants allege that Mr Curtin (and others) trespassed on the Access Land and again obstructed vehicles driven by the First Defendant’s employees at the Wyton Site, whilst using a loudhailer to shout at those in the vehicles. A former employee was driving a yellow Ford Ka and Employee F was driving a white Mercedes A class. 171. 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. The obstruction of the vehicles is also alleged to be part of a course of conduct involving harassment of the relevant employees by Mr Curtin. 172. Whilst there is CCTV footage of the events, Employee F is the only witness who gave evidence about the incidents on 17 July 2021. Mr Curtin did not challenge Employee F on the detail of his/her account. Employee F stated that Mr Curtin was one of several identified protestors who had obstructed Employee F’s vehicle (the second of two vehicles) when he was attempting to leave the Wyton Site. The first vehicle was held up for around 2 minutes before it could pass along the Access Road and onto the highway. Once the leading vehicle had left, the protestors, including Mr Curtin, stood in the middle of the Access Road in front of Employee F’s vehicle, causing him to have to stop. He was held there for about a minute after which he was able to edge his vehicle forward – surrounded by protestors – and out onto the highway. During the incident, another protestor identified by Employee F, shouted at him/her “ get another job, get another job… problem solved ”. Employee F interpreted this as the protestor threatening him/her and suggesting that s/he should leave his/her job so that s/he would not have to deal with the protestors when coming in and out of work. Mr Curtin is not alleged to have said anything threatening or intimidating to Employee F (or the employee driving the other vehicle) during this incident. 173. Mr Curtin was cross-examined based on the CCTV evidence. This was another pre-injunction incident, and it has the same features of the ‘ritual’ in action. Mr Curtin accepted that he stood in the path of the vehicles, temporarily preventing them from leaving the Wyton Site. In doing so, he also accepted that he trespassed on the Claimant’s land for a brief period. It was clear from Mr Curtin’s answers in evidence that, at this stage, he did not believe that he was doing anything wrong in temporarily obstructing the exiting vehicles as part of the ‘ritual’. It was clear from his evidence that Mr Curtin did believe, however, that although the ‘ritual’ did delay the departure of vehicles, it ultimately facilitated their leaving. The alternative, in the early days of the protest, would have been that other protestors would either have blockaded them into the Wyton Site, or totally prevented them from gaining access. To have taken that step, Mr Curtin clearly believed, would simply have invited action by the police, so, in his eyes, the ‘ritual’ represented a compromise between the protestors and those attempting to gain access to/from the Wyton Site. 174. My findings in relation to the pleaded 17 July 2021 incident are: (1) Mr Curtin trespassed, for a short period, on the First Claimant’s land. (2) Mr Curtin (with others) obstructed the vehicles leaving the Wyton Site from gaining access to the highway. As such, Mr Curtin interfered with the First
113
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator