MR JUSTICE NICKLIN Approved Judgment
MBR Acres Ltd -v- Curtin
Injunction. The ‘ritual’ was a regular and, at the height of the protests, almost daily occurrence. This inevitably meant that vehicles were obstructed getting from the Wyton Site to the highway. 324. On the evidence, I am satisfied that there is a real risk that “Persons Unknown” who are protesting about the activities of the First Claimant will engage in the obstruction of vehicles as they enter or leave the Wyton Site. (5) Public nuisance by obstruction of the highway 325. Before the grant of the Interim Injunction, some large-scale demonstrations took place outside the Wyton Site. There were also some further isolated incidents of significant obstruction of the highway, primarily targeted at those going to or from the Wyton Site. The key events have been as follows: (1) On 9 July 2021, a demonstration was attended by between 150-200 protestors. It lasted for nearly 2 hours. (2) On 1 August 2021, there was another large-scale demonstration, numbering up to 260 protestors. The Claimants allege that the police struggled to contain the protestors and that reinforcements were required. Four protestors were arrested. (3) On 13 August 2021, a convoy of staff cars was intercepted on the main carriageway around 70 metres from the entrance to the Wyton Site. It took 40 minutes for the vehicles to travel along the highway and to enter the Wyton Site. (4) On 15 August 2021, approximately 250 people attended a large demonstration (see [192]-[198] above). (5) On 1 July 2023, approximately 50 people attended the two-year anniversary of Camp Beagle. Ms Pressick described this as “ a relatively quiet event considering its significance ”. Although she identified several alleged incidents of breach of the Interim Injunction (trespass and entry into the Exclusion Zone), there was no large scale obstruction of the highway. 326. There was also a significant protest event, on 20 November 2021, after the grant of the Interim Injunction. On that occasion, there was a significant obstruction of the highway. This incident was one of those included in the First Contempt Application, and it led subsequently to the variation of the Interim Injunction (see [39]-[40] above). 327. Whether any of these events amounted to a public nuisance is difficult to determine on the evidence. Perhaps because of their belief that any obstruction of the highway was a public nuisance, the Claimants have not provided evidence of the wider impact of the obstruction of the carriageway in each of the incidents I have identified above. On the evidence I have I can, I think, properly draw the inference that the incident on 15 August 2021, in terms of the length of the obstruction of the highway and its likely community impact, was a public nuisance. But the other incidents are not as clear cut, and, on the evidence, the Claimants have not proved that they were a public nuisance. 328. It is also important to note that in each of these incidents there was a significant police presence. In none of the incidents did the police seek to intervene or use their powers
150
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator