MR JUSTICE NICKLIN Approved Judgment
MBR Acres Ltd -v- Curtin
(5) Employee V said s/he felt “ constantly scared ” that Mr Curtin would pull down his/her mask and reveal his/her identity. (6) Employee V felt that Mr Curtin’s actions of being close to him/her, and abusing him/her for 15 to 20 minutes as s/he carried out his/her job was “ overwhelming ”. S/he was “ very distressed ” after the incident and believed that it led to a deterioration in his/her mental health. “ I think this was a reaction to feeling so vulnerable (i.e. without a fence or car between me and [Mr Curtin]) and feeling degraded by not being able to retaliate or respond, as we have been advised by the police ”. 287. In cross-examination, Employee V confirmed that s/he knew that Mr Curtin was livestreaming the encounter. In relation to the comment that s/he was a “ freak ”, Employee V accepted that Mr Curtin had been reading out comments that had been received from people watching the livestream. Mr Curtin put to Employee V that the context of the encounter was him making a livestream during which he was offering a general commentary about the First Claimant. Employee V replied:
“… you intensified your livestream to intimidate me. You got very close to me. I do agree you did not touch me, but at one point you became very close and you did everything possible to slow my work down.”
288. In questioning, Employee V accepted that s/he had carried out research on Mr Curtin and this had coloured the impression s/he had of him. Employee V considered Mr Curtin to be one of the main leaders of the camp, who advised the other protestors on their tactics. S/he described the protestors as seeming to be very fanatical in their beliefs. Employee V said s/he had carried out internet research on the tactics used by protestors. This appears to have generated in Employee V a significant fear based not so much on what the protestors had actually done, but what Employee V believed they might be capable of doing. 289. This is not a pleaded allegation of harassment against Mr Curtin, so I intend to state my conclusions on this incident quite shortly. 290. It was clear from his/her evidence as a whole that Employee V had been significantly affected by the protests at the Wyton Site and not just this encounter with Mr Curtin. S/he was concerned that s/he might become a target away from the Wyton Site and expressed a fear, shared by several employees, at what the protestors might be capable of doing. I do not doubt that the particular encounter with Mr Curtin did upset him/her. I accept his/her evidence as to how s/he felt and how it affected him/her, but, in part, his/her sense of concern appears to have been elevated by his research on Mr Curtin rather than anything that Mr Curtin had actually done, whether during the incident or before. 291. Employee V appeared to me also to lack insight. S/he did not appreciate why protestors called the workers, generically, “ puppy killers ”. S/he approached the issue simply on the basis that, as s/he personally had not been involved in the killing of any of the animals, it was wrong for the allegation to be made. That is to take literally the words used, and to fail to recognise that this was a protest message directed at the First Claimant’s operation at the Wyton Site.
143
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator