MR JUSTICE NICKLIN Approved Judgment
MBR Acres Ltd -v- Curtin
“ The lowest I have seen a drone flying at the Wyton Site is approximately 3ft above the ground to capture information from dog travel boxes. I am constantly concerned for my safety when drones are flown by the protestors, as a drone could cause a bad injury if it were to crash into something or someone. I hear the drone nearly every day, and on average the drone flies at a 2-storey building height . The protestors used to fly the drone much lower than this, but a couple of months ago this changed and it started to fly higher (but, as I say, it is still about the height of a 2-storey building). To stop the drones filming through windows, I have installed protective measures in all windows of the Wyton Site, for example frosting the glass, installing one way glass laminate or installing curtains. When there is a drone over the Wyton Site, I used to stop carrying out tasks outside, which meant that anything I needed to do was delayed. Now, as it was not possible to carry out the outside tasks required in the time the drone was not up, I have to wear my concealment clothing when working outside at the Wyton Site, as well as driving in and out. I do this to prevent the drones from capturing footage identifying me to the protestors, for the reasons that I have set out above. Having to cover up like this when working is particularly uncomfortable in summer time due to the heat.
The drone sound has had a real effect on my mental health. I was once on holiday sitting on the beach and heard a stranger’s drone. I thought that the protestors had found me and as a result I was concerned for my safety. I believe the use of drones is another form of psychological intimidation tactics used by the protestors. I used to immediately report the drones to security, now I just try to ignore it. The drones have a psychological and physical impact on my health.” None of the evidence concerns (or supports) the single allegation of drone trespass made against Mr Curtin. None of the witnesses links his/her evidence to the use of a drone on any particular occasion. In relation to the harassment claim made against Mr Curtin, therefore, none of the witnesses says that the incident of the drone use on 21 June 2022 caused him/her distress or upset, or why it did on this particular occasion. (2) 261. I note the following things about this evidence: (1) Insofar as the witnesses complain of low-flying drones (see sections marked in bold), this cannot relate to the incident alleged against Mr Curtin as the drone was being flown by him at 50m. (3) As the Claimants are not pursuing a harassment claim against “Persons Unknown” in relation to drone flying, the evidence from these witnesses about the impact on them is not relevant to trespass claim. Equally, whilst understandable, the concerns expressed about privacy infringement are equally irrelevant in the absence of a pleaded cause of action to which this evidence might have been relevant.
136
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator