MR JUSTICE NICKLIN Approved Judgment
MBR Acres Ltd -v- Curtin
gate), that it did not work as intended (i.e. as an early warning device to alert the camp to vehicle movements). (3) No witness has said that s/he was caused distress or alarm or otherwise felt harassed by the siting of the cameras. It may be that none of them noticed one or other of the cameras, or that they were more concerned by the hand-held recording of them by individual protestors, but this would be to speculate about evidence I do not have. The short – and simple – point is that the Claimants have adduced no evidence that the siting of these cameras caused any distress/alarm/upset to any employee. In the absence of that evidence, the cross-examination of Mr Curtin (see [245] above) was conducted on a hypothetical basis. 26 April 2022 and 12 May 2022: the Third Contempt Application 247. The Claimants allege that, on 26 April 2022, Mr Curtin (and others) caused a public nuisance by obstructing the highway for an Impex delivery vehicle after it had left the Wyton Site. Specifically, Mr Curtin is alleged to have stood in front of the vehicle. 248. The Claimants allege that, on 12 May 2022, Mr Curtin (and others) caused a public nuisance by obstructing the highway for a police van that sought to move off from a stationary position on the carriageway outside the Wyton Site. Specifically, Mr Curtin is alleged to have stood in front of the vehicle. 249. As these allegations were the subject of contempt proceedings against Mr Curtin (the Third Contempt Application), the evidence (and submissions) were dealt with at a separate hearing, following the trial, on 23 June 2023. Mr Curtin had been granted legal aid for the Third Contempt Application, and he was represented by Mr Taylor. 250. At an earlier directions hearing in November 2022, the Claimants indicated that they would not be pursuing Ground 3 (kicking the box) and Ground 4 (assisting someone in a dinosaur costume). At the commencement of the hearing on 23 June 2023, Ms Bolton indicated that the Claimants had agreed also not to proceed (as an allegation of contempt) with Grounds 1 and 5 (entry into the Exclusion Zone) and Ground 6 (obstruction of the police van leaving the Exclusion Zone). That left Ground 2 as the only allegation of breach of the Interim Injunction pursued by the Claimants. On behalf of Mr Curtin, Mr Taylor indicated that Mr Curtin accepted the breach of the Interim Injunction in Ground 2. 251. As noted already, Mr Curtin gave evidence at the hearing on 23 June 2023. He stated that he had been campaigning against vivisection for 40 years. He hoped that, by protesting, he would draw attention to the activities of the First Defendant and he wanted the law to be changed to prohibit testing on animals. Mr Curtin accepted that he was aware of the terms of the Interim Injunction. In light of that, Mr Curtin was asked by Mr Taylor about the events in the small hours of 26 April 2022, which gave rise to Ground 2 of the contempt application. Mr Curtin said this:
“We had some information that night-time – shipments of dogs at night-time had already happened, a number. They’d sneak the vans in and out. We had an assurance from the police liaison officer that the police were not prepared to cover night-time actions. That was the understanding, and I couldn’t believe this
130
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator