MR JUSTICE NICKLIN Approved Judgment
MBR Acres Ltd -v- Curtin
give evidence. Little further information is given about the charge, but Employee C confirmed in his/her witness statement that Mr Curtin was acquitted. 231. Ms Bolton cross-examined Mr Curtin about this incident. She suggested to him that, in his address to the other protestors, he had made plain that the purpose was to obstruct the workers leaving the Wyton Site. Mr Curtin accepted that, as part of the ‘ritual’ they were going to be held up “ to some degree ” but there was not going to be a blockade: “ We’re going to have a demonstration. They’re going to look at our banners, and they’re going to go home ”. He wanted the other protestors to observe the ‘ritual’, rather than lashing out at the employees’ vehicles. Mr Curtin accepted that the video evidence showed him standing in front of a vehicle. Mr Curtin accepted that he hoped that the protest activities against the First Claimant would lead to it being closed down. He denied that his protest was targeting workers to get them to leave their jobs. He denied that the protest methods adopted by him and others at Camp Beagle had sought to target individual employees. 232. In cross-examination, Ms Bolton did not pursue the allegation that Mr Curtin was guilty of trespass in this incident. 233. My findings in relation to the incident on 13 September 2021 are: (1) 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 Claimant’s common law right of access to the highway by being part of a group of protestors who stood around and at times in front of the vehicles as they attempted to leave the Wyton Site. The obstruction was short-lived; being measured in a few minutes. It will have caused only minor inconvenience. (2) The obstruction of the highway in this incident did not amount to a public nuisance. The obstruction on each occasion was temporary and, applying the test of what amounts to “public nuisance” (set out in [93] above), it affected only the specific individuals involved rather than the public generally. (3) I state my conclusions below ([298]-[308]) on whether, taken with other incidents, the events on 13 September 2021 amount to a course of conduct by Mr Curtin that involves harassment of the employees of the First Defendant. However, looked at in isolation, I am not persuaded that Mr Curtin’s behaviour in this incident crossed the line from unattractive, even unreasonable, to that which is oppressive and unacceptable. 22 September 2021 234. The Claimants allege that Mr Curtin (and others) caused a public nuisance by obstructing the highway for an Anglian Water vehicle that was attempting to leave the Wyton Site. Specifically, Mr Curtin is alleged to have stood in front of the vehicle and instructed other protestors to do similarly. The obstruction of this vehicle is also alleged to be part of a course of conduct involving harassment of the driver by Mr Curtin and an interference with the First Claimant’s common law right of access to the highway. 235. Apart from the narrative in Ms Pressick’s witness statement (which is simply a commentary on the CCTV footage) the evidence relating to this incident comes solely
124
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator