MR JUSTICE NICKLIN Approved Judgment
MBR Acres Ltd -v- Curtin
201. My finding in relation to the pleaded 4 September 2021 incident is that Mr Curtin trespassed, for a few moments, on the First Claimant’s land. 6 September 2021 202. The Claimants allege the Mr Curtin (and others) repeatedly trespassed on the Access Land and obstructed a white van attempting to enter the Wyton Site. 203. Further, it is alleged that Mr Curtin (and others) caused a public nuisance by obstructing the white van’s passage along the carriageway. The obstruction of the vehicle is also alleged to be part of a course of conduct involving harassment of the driver by Mr Curtin. 204. Although this incident was witnessed by Mr Manning, the principal evidence relied upon by the Claimants is the video footage, captured by CCTV. 205. Mr Manning called the police to ask for assistance at 13.38. Mr Manning told the driver of the van that the police had been called. There is no evidence from the driver of the vehicle. There is no suggestion that he was subject to any abuse. 206. The video evidence shows the arrival of the white van at the gates of the Wyton Site. Mr Curtin quickly arrives on the scene. At some point, prior to the grant of the Interim Injunction, the protestors had taken to placing banners (with protest messages) around the entrance to the Wyton Site. On some occasions, and visible in the forage for this incident, a banner was placed across the front of the gates, which would have needed to be removed before any vehicle could gain access to the Wyton Site. 207. Ms Bolton cross-examined Mr Curtin about the incident. Mr Curtin stated that the protestors were always concerned when white vans turned up, as the vehicles used to transport the dogs were often white vans. Mr Curtin said that he would usually want to inquire with the van driver who s/he was and what s/he was doing. He accepted that protestors were standing in front of the van. Mr Curtin said that he would often offer a leaflet to the drivers of vehicles who were not employees of the First Claimant to attempt to spread the message about the protest. Mr Curtin accepted that the length of time that a vehicle might be held up at the gate might depend on the attitude of the driver. He also accepted that, on this occasion, the vehicle had been obstructed from entering the Wyton Site. On the evidence, that was for about 6 minutes. Mr Curtin was, however, frank that he could not prevent vehicles accessing the site. He thought that, if he did that, he would get arrested. He wanted to avoid arrest because that would put him at risk of being subject to bail conditions that might include a prohibition on his attending the Wyton Site, which would have curtailed his ability to protest. The best he said he could achieve was to delay the arrival, to attempt to find out the purpose of the person’s visit and to hope to convey information about the protest, either by conversation or by handing over a leaflet. To Mr Curtin’s mind, there was no question that the vehicle would end up going into the Wyton Site, but he would attempt to engage the driver in conversation. 208. In answer to some questions from me, Mr Curtin confirmed that the banners were a regular fixture at this stage of the protest, although on occasions the police might ask them to remove some banners if they were obstructing the view down the highway. He said that the banner, “ Gates of Hell ”, which was placed across the main gate was
119
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator