MR JUSTICE NICKLIN Approved Judgment
MBR Acres Ltd -v- Curtin
(4) Turning to the harassment claim, the position is straightforward. There is no evidence that anyone was harassed by Mr Curtin’s flight of the drone on 21 June 2022. It cannot therefore form any part of the alleged course of conduct involving harassment. (5) Finally, considering whether the Claimants’ evidence shows that, unless restrained, Mr Curtin is likely to use the drone to harass in the future, I am not persuaded on the evidence that the Claimants can demonstrate a credible threat that he will. I have accepted Mr Curtin’s evidence that he flies the drone at 50 metres. Flown at that height, there is no credible basis to contend that future flights of the drone are likely to amount the harassment of any of the employees. There is no evidence that Mr Curtin is carrying out surveillance of individual employees, for example to be able to identify them. I appreciate that several witnesses expressed the fear that this was one of the objectives of the drone flights. But these are their subjective fears; they are not objectively substantiated on the evidence. 11 July 2022 275. The Claimants allege that Mr Curtin (and others) caused a public nuisance by obstructing the highway for a vehicle driven by Ms Read that had left the Wyton Site. Specifically, it is alleged that Mr Curtin stepped in front of and walked in front of the vehicle causing the vehicle to slow. 276. The incident is captured on CCTV. In her witness statement, Ms Read described the incident as follows:
“On 11 July 2022 at 15.04, [Mr Curtin] walked in front of my car as I was driving along the main carriageway of the Highway… The incident happening as I was leaving the Wyton Site for the day; I left a few minutes later than everyone else on this day. I saw [Mr Curtin] walk across the Highway to the tent, and linger about, I had a feeling as I drove towards him that he was going to step out in front of me. [Mr Curtin], as I approached him in my car, he then walked in front of my car, causing me to slow down to avoid hitting him. He looked at me, and it felt like he was goading me – as if he was thinking ‘I can do what I want away from the Access Road’. I found [Mr Curtin’s] conduct very intimidating and I was fearful, as I did not know what he was planning to do.”
277. Ms Read was not called to give evidence, and her evidence has been relied upon as hearsay by the Claimants. It is perhaps unfortunate that her evidence on this incident could not be explored and tested in cross-examination, particularly having regard to what can be seen of the incident from the CCTV recording. What that footage shows is little more than Mr Curtin crossing the B1090 road some 100 yards from the entrance to the Wyton Site. 278. Mr Curtin was cross-examined by Ms Bolton. She put to him that he had deliberately walked out in front of Ms Read’s car because she had come from the Wyton Site. Mr Curtin disagreed, and maintained that he was simply crossing the road. 279. My conclusions in relation to this incident are as follows:
140
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator