MR JUSTICE NICKLIN Approved Judgment
MBR Acres Ltd -v- Curtin
number of cars entering and exiting the Wyton Site. Car sharing also meant that we could provide physical and emotional support to each other, and I felt more comfortable and slightly safer by having more people in the car with me, rather than being isolated on my own and in my car… Car sharing was helpful as when I was in my own car, and the protestors surrounded me (which happened often), it was incredibly scary, intimidating and harassing. I felt nervous and bullied. The intimidation and feeling of being personally targeted was heightened by the protestors holding the car captive by surrounding it, making a lot of noise, by playing drums and shouting threateningly, and filming me. I was scared that the protestors might smash the windows of the car, slash the tyres or damage the car in some way. It was helpful to have the emotional support of those with me in the car.”
242. Whilst this evidence gives an insight into the fears of some of the employees, it provides little (if any) support for the particular claim advanced against Mr Curtin concerning his siting of the two cameras. First, the evidence of these three witnesses, particularly that of Ms Read, fails to distinguish between Mr Curtin’s actions and the methods practised by different protestors. The evidence shows that some protestors have adopted a strategy of filming or photographing the employees. Others have not. Of those that have, some of them – a small minority – appear to have posted a small number of images on social media. Not all protestors adopt these methods. Only some protestors – again a small minority – have directed their protests at individual workers. Importantly, the Claimants do not suggest that Mr Curtin has adopted any of these tactics. Mr Curtin is not to be judged by the conduct of other protestors. If there is a complaint about such conduct, it is better dealt with on a direct basis by seeking to identify and take steps against the individuals concerned. I appreciate that many of the workers feel that they are being personally targeted by the protestors, but save for a few isolated incidents – which in all probability amount to criminal offences – the vast majority of protestors are not targeting any individual worker. Perhaps of most importance for the case against Mr Curtin, the Claimants do not allege that he has been targeting individual workers. 243. Mr Curtin was cross-examined about the allegations that his act of siting these two cameras was part of a campaign of harassment against the employees. In relation to the camera positioned outside the main gate of the Wyton Site, Mr Curtin said that it had been the idea of another protestor to place a camera. He had hoped that it might enable the footage to be “ beamed across the world ”. The device was a “Ring” camera and this apparently meant that anyone with the relevant password could log in and view the livestream from the camera. Mr Curtin said that there were several cameras. One faced the gate and others pointed in the direction of the carriageway. The “Ring” camera provided a fixed view. Other cameras could be controlled to point in different directions. Ms Bolton suggested to Mr Curtin that “ if the target of the protest wasn’t the staff, there would be no need to have a camera facing the gate, would there? ” Mr Curtin disagreed, and he rejected the suggestion that the camera was installed to intimidate the workers. Mr Curtin said that the cameras had been removed after there had been some falling out in the camp. 244. In relation to the later incident of siting a camera on a container within Camp Beagle, Mr Curtin again rejected Ms Bolton’s suggestion that it had been placed there to “ capture … the staff arriving in the morning and leaving ”. Mr Curtin said that camera
128
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator