MR JUSTICE NICKLIN Approved Judgment
MBR Acres Ltd -v- Curtin
268. In answer to the Claimants’ claim that flying the drone – generally – amounted to harassment of the workers at the Wyton Site, in cross-examination, Mr Curtin made the point that at no stage has footage from the drone been used to attempt to identify workers or images placed on the Camp Beagle website in a sort of ‘rogues gallery’. And, indeed, the Claimants have adduced no evidence of the drone footage being used for that purpose. Again, on this point, the concerns of the employees are directed at what might happen rather than what has happened. At a prosaic level, if the workers are concerned about the risks of being potentially photographed whilst they are going about their duties outdoors at the Wyton Site, then that threat is ever-present because they could be photographed by someone standing at the perimeter fence or by a drone not flying directly over the Wyton Site. For the purposes of the case against Mr Curtin, the short point is that there is simply no evidence that Mr Curtin has been flying drones, or taking photographs, as part of an exercise to identify employees at the Wyton Site. I accept Mr Curtin’s evidence that he has not sought to do so. 269. Mr Curtin accepted that footage from drones has been posted on the Facebook page of Camp Beagle. Mr Bolton suggested to Mr Curtin in cross-examination that his posting of drone footage of the Wyton Site might provide an opportunity for someone to learn more about the layout of the site and that this knowledge might assist someone who wanted to break into the site. Mr Curtin’s immediate response to this suggestion was “ that’s stretching it ”, but he accepted that it might assist such a person. This section of cross-examination was hypothetical and not helpful – or relevant – to the issues I must decide. 270. As the Claimants have submitted – correctly – in relation to the main claim for trespass, the tort is simple and one of strict liability. The decision to be made is whether the flying of the drone is a trespass or not. What Mr Curtin hopes to achieve by flying the done, and the risks that might arise from publication of footage obtained from the use of the drone, are simply irrelevant. It is either a trespass or it is not. I identified the potential limits of the law of trespass – as it concerns drone use – in the Interim Injunction Judgment ([111]-[115]). Despite having ample opportunity to seek to amend their claim to do so, the Claimants have chosen not to seek to advance any alternative causes of action that might more effectively have addressed the concerns they have over drone use. 271. The final part of Ms Bolton’s cross-examination was taken up with Mr Curtin being asked questions about other drone footage for which the Claimants had not alleged he was responsible. With the benefit of hindsight, and particularly considering the exchanges that followed (which consisted of little more than Mr Curtin being asked to comment on extracts from the drone footage and what it showed), I should have stopped the cross-examination. It quickly became speculative and, insofar as it was attempting to ascertain whether Mr Curtin was responsible for further drone flights beyond the specific example alleged against him, potentially unfair to him. I had wanted to ensure, in fairness to the Claimants, that they had an opportunity to develop as best they could their case (a) as to the threat of Mr Curtin carrying out further acts of alleged trespass/harassment with the drone; and (b) against Persons Unknown. 272. The Claimants have sought to adduce no expert evidence relating to drone usage, for example, based on the photographs and footage captured by the drones that have been put in evidence (a) at what height was the drone flying; and (b) whether the drone was immediately above the Wyton Site. Ms Bolton attempted to make up for this lack
138
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator