MR JUSTICE NICKLIN Approved Judgment
MBR Acres Ltd -v- Curtin
First Claimant. The footage obtained was posted to the Camp Beagle Facebook page the same day. 256. They flying of the drone is alleged by the Claimants to be (a) a trespass; and (b) part of a course of conduct involving harassment of the First Claimant’s staff. 257. Although some of the Claimants’ witnesses give general evidence of drone usage over the Wyton Site, the evidence relating to this specific incident – as it relates to Mr Curtin – is solely video, drawn largely from footage obtained from the drone that was posted on the Camp Beagle Facebook page. The drone is equipped with a camera, that clearly has the ability to zoom in and magnify the image of the terrain below it. 258. Ms Pressick, in her witness statement, gave a narrative commentary on drone usage based on the video evidence available to her. Ms Pressick purports to give evidence as to the height at which the drone was being flown on each occasion. However, much of the evidence she gives is (a) vague and imprecise (e.g. “ at a height I estimate was below 150 and/or 50 meters ” (which appears to embrace a range between 1 to 150m); and (b) expert evidence which she is not qualified to give. The only reliable evidence as to the height at which any drone was being flown, on any occasion, comes from instances where the height of the drone is shown as part of the footage (e.g. the footage posted to Camp Beagle’s Facebook page on 16 June 2022 which records the height as being 50 metres). Finally, much of Ms Pressick’s witness statement about generic drone usage is irrelevant to the claim in trespass. Her contention, for example, that, in one example, “ the drone is being used to monitor business activity ” is not relevant to the claim in trespass. Either the drone is trespassing on the relevant occasion, or it is not. Absent any suggestion of implied licence (of which there is none), the purpose of a drone’s alleged trespass is not relevant. 259. Ms Pressick was questioned about Mr Curtin’s use of a drone. She stated that, in around April/May 2022, staff had been forced to transport dogs around the site in a van rather than in crates because of the drone. Mr Curtin disputed that this was a regular practice. Ms Pressick accepted that the workers might still move the dogs in crates, even when the drone was around the site. Ms Pressick said that she had personally seen the drone whilst she had been on site. Asked at what height it was being flown, Ms Pressick said that it was “ above building height ”. Ms Pressick stated that her main objection to the drone use was the fact that it was filming. It was that aspect, rather than any annoyance caused by the drone operations, that was the concern. Ms Pressick said that she understood why the protestors wanted to monitor the activities on site which was linked to their protest activities: “ It’s what the feel they need to do ”. 260. Potentially relevant evidence was provided by several witnesses who spoke of their direct experience of drones flying over the Wyton Site (emphasis added): (1) Mr Manning stated:
“In general, I do not have an issue with the use of drones if they are flown in the right manner and they are not being used to invade people’s privacy. However, there are a number of occasions when I have experienced the protestors flying their drones in a dangerous manner. For example, sometimes they are very erratically flown downwards, and then from side to side quickly. Sometimes the drones are also flown really low, to about the
132
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator