MR JUSTICE NICKLIN Approved Judgment
MBR Acres Ltd -v- Curtin
(2) Such obstruction of the highway as there was in this incident did not amount to a public nuisance. Although the obstruction of the vehicle on this occasion was longer than had typically been the case in the ‘rituals’ it was temporary and, applying the test of what amounts to “public nuisance” (set out in [93] above), it affected only a single driver rather than the public generally. (3) Although this incident has been pleaded against Mr Curtin as part of a course of conduct involving harassment, in my judgment it is incapable of supporting the harassment claim. There is no evidence from the driver of the vehicle that Mr Curtin’s conduct caused him distress or alarm. 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. At worst, Mr Curtin’s role in the episode can be described as regrettable, as I think he accepted when he gave evidence. 10 April 2022 and 7 May 2022 239. I shall take these two incidents together, because they amount, essentially, to a single complaint. The Claimants allege that, on 10 April 2022, Mr Curtin placed a CCTV camera (or similar device) on a mast erected outside the Wyton Site and, on 7 May 2022, Mr Curtin (and another unidentified male) placed a CCTV camera (or similar device) on a container within Camp Beagle. It is alleged that these cameras were positioned and used to monitor the activities of the First Claimant’s staff. Mr Curtin’s activities are alleged to be part of a course of conduct involving harassment of the First Claimant’s staff. 240. The Claimants’ evidence as to the positioning of the cameras in these incidents is CCTV footage, and Mr Curtin does not dispute that he was one of those who was involved in the siting of the relevant camera in each incident. 241. None of the Claimants’ witnesses gave evidence regarding the siting of and use of the cameras in the two incidents complained of by the Claimant. There is therefore no evidence that any of them was caused distress or alarm at what Mr Curtin was alleged to have done. Instead, the Claimants relied upon the evidence of several witnesses as to their fears about being filmed/photographed. In her closing submissions, Ms Bolton identified the following: (1) Mr Markou said:
“Around this time (summer 2021) the protestors were very active on social media and would upload videos from their protests at the Wyton Site, as well as ‘live stream’ from outside the Wyton Site on Facebook. As I explain below, it was very invasive and caused me distress that images of my (albeit covered) face and vehicle were being uploaded to public social media sites where I could then potentially be identified and targeted. I knew (from reading articles online and speaking to other colleagues) that some of the protestors ([one] in particular [not Mr Curtin]) had criminal records in relation to activities that they had undertaken in the course of earlier protests, and this made me fear for my own safety even more as I didn’t know what they were capable of. I have taken every single step I can to protect my identity, and I fear for my own safety if I am recognised by the protestors.
126
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator