MR JUSTICE NICKLIN Approved Judgment
MBR Acres Ltd -v- Curtin
was not capable of doing that and that he had tried to use it as a way of alerting the camp to the movement of vehicles into and out of the Wyton Site, but it had not worked. The protestors, he said, had been concerned that there had been some night-time movement of vans which the “Ring” camera had not detected. 245. Ms Bolton suggested to Mr Curtin that the cameras were used to identify vehicle number plates and then put them on social media, as a means of targeting the employees. The Claimants had no evidential basis to make that assertion. Ms Bolton clarified that she was not suggesting that Mr Curtin had done this but that the footage could be used for this purpose. There followed this exchange: Q: It’s reasonable, isn’t it, that when [the employees] see cameras pointed at the gates, as they come and go, that that’s going to cause them distress that yet again they are being recorded and that that could be for the purposes of identifying them, stopping them in the road, working out where they live. That’s foreseeable, isn’t it, that that’s going to cause them distress? A: They live in Britain. They live in a place where they know damn well the controversial nature… they know how sensitive it is. They can now expect people to be watching their movements because they are so controversial. So a person of reasonable firmness – unless you want the protest to absolutely like I said, vaporise, once the secret is out – they were happy enough when nobody knew it was there and the local people didn’t know it was there. Now it’s out, a reasonable person kind of has to accept some sort of… well people watching them. They know it.” It’s right, isn’t it, Mr Curtin, that whilst the employees have accepted there will be a degree of protest, it’s quite a different thing, isn’t it, for them to have to experience the distress of knowing that, if they don’t put on a disguise to drive in and out of work everyday, that they could be picked up on cameras and that information may be shared and they may be identified? That’s going to cause them distress, isn’t it. A: … Q: Not all of the workers cover their faces… If there are fears – there have been some incidents – where people have been outed publicly. If these cameras went along with parallel, with say like the rogues’ gallery, then yes there’s like ‘The cameras are going to mean we’re going to be put on some site and they are going to generate hate for us’. That hasn’t happened, that hasn’t materialised, apart from some – there have been no incidents with individuals. The campaign has not gone down that road. 246. My conclusions in relation to these allegations are as follows: (1) These two incidents cannot, and do not, support the Claimants’ case that Mr Curtin is guilty of a course of conduct involving harassment. (2) Mr Curtin accepts that he was involved in the siting of the two cameras. The Claimants have adduced no evidence as to the footage that was actually captured by either of these devices. They have not challenged Mr Curtin’s evidence that, in relation to the camera sited in Camp Beagle (not opposite the
129
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator