MR JUSTICE NICKLIN Approved Judgment
MBR Acres Ltd -v- Curtin
297. As this is not a pleaded allegation against Mr Curtin said to form part of the alleged course of conduct involving harassment, I can deal with this shortly. Objectively judged, what Mr Curtin did (as described by Mr Manning and shown on the footage) lacks the necessary qualities to amount to harassment. The incident has not been repeated, and therefore it sheds no light on whether, if the Claimants can prove a case of actual or threatened harassment against Mr Curtin, they can credibly suggest that this incident shows that there is need for an injunction to restrain future acts of harassment by Mr Curtin. (3) Conclusion on the claim of harassment against Mr Curtin 298. As noted above ([108]), the harassment claim brought against Mr Curtin is brought under s.1(1A) PfHA. 299. In the section above, I have stated my conclusions in respect of each of the acts alleged by the Claimants to constitute a course of conduct involving harassment of those in the Second Claimant class. I have not found that any of them, individually, were serious enough to amount to harassment applying the principles I have identified (see [99]-[108] above). 300. Nevertheless, I must step back and consider whether, taken together, these incidents do reach the required threshold of seriousness to amount to harassment. I am quite satisfied that they do not. 301. Although, in the pre-injunction phase, the repeated surrounding of vehicles of those entering and leaving the Wyton Site, has an element of repetition that might supply the necessary element of oppression, the same element of repetition meant that those in the vehicles should, objectively, quickly have become used to it. The ‘ritual’ did not change much. Although it was inconvenient, caused delay, and upset some employees, the ‘ritual’ was predictable and could not have failed to have been understood to be an expression of protest. Objectively, it was not targeted at any individual employee. Several witnesses were more concerned about what the protestors might do, rather than what they actually did. 302. As I am dealing with the claim made against Mr Curtin, it is necessary to concentrate on the evidence about what Mr Curtin did, not the actions of other protestors. At its height, the Claimants’ evidence demonstrates that Mr Curtin participated in several ‘rituals’ and he expressed his protest message. It goes no further than that. Ms Bolton, in her final submissions, placed no reliance on the content of what Mr Curtin shouted at the employees. 303. I am not persuaded that this crosses the threshold between unattractive or unreasonable behaviour to that which is oppressive and unacceptable. In a democratic society, the Court must set this threshold with the requirements of Articles 10 and 11 clearly in mind. It would be a serious interference with these rights if those wishing to protest and express strongly held views could be silenced by actual or threatened proceedings for harassment based on subjective claims by individuals that they were caused distress or alarm. The context for alleged harassment will always be very important. In terms of whether the conduct supplies the necessary element of oppression to constitute harassment, there is a big difference between an employee of the First Claimant having to encounter, and withstand, a protest message with which s/he is confronted on his/her
145
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator