MR JUSTICE NICKLIN Approved Judgment
MBR Acres Ltd -v- Curtin
prevent the commission of civil wrongs such as trespass, they are entitled to apply to the civil courts for any relief allowed by law. In particular, they are entitled to invoke the equitable jurisdiction of the court so as to obtain an injunction against potential trespassers. For the reasons we have explained, courts have jurisdiction to make such orders against persons who are not parties to the action, i.e. newcomers. In so far as the local authorities are seeking to prevent breaches of public law, including planning law and the law relating to highways, they are empowered to seek injunctions by statutory provisions such as those mentioned in para 45 above. They can accordingly invoke the equitable jurisdiction of the court, which extends, as we have explained, to the granting of newcomer injunctions. The possibility of an alternative non-judicial remedy does not deprive the courts of jurisdiction. [171]Although we reject the constitutional objection, we accept that the availability of non-judicial remedies, such as the making of byelaws and the exercise of other statutory powers, may bear on questions (i) and (v) in para 167 above: that is to say, whether there is a compelling need for an injunction, and whether it is, on the facts, just and convenient to grant one… 366. I note that in Valero Ltd -v- Persons Unknown [2024] EWHC 124 (KB) [57] , Ritchie J described contra mundum injunctions as “ a nuclear option in civil law akin to a temporary piece of legislation affecting all citizens in England and Wales for the future ”. 367. As a first instance Judge, my obligation is clear. I must faithfully follow and apply the law as declared by the Supreme Court. But I remain troubled by the Courts seeking to set the boundaries upon lawful protest by contra mundum injunctions. I remain concerned that, constitutionally, the prohibition of conduct by citizens generally, with the threat of punishment (including imprisonment) for contravention, ought to be a matter for Parliament. 368. Prior to Wolverhampton , the grant of contra mundum injunctions was limited to exceptional cases where the court was “ driven in each case to make the order by a perception that the risk to the claimants’ Convention rights placed it under a positive duty to act ”: Wolverhampton [110]. As that duty was imposed by Parliament, by s.6 Human Rights Act 1998, there could be no suggestion that by granting the order, the Court was arrogating to itself a power of legislation that was exclusively the province of Parliament. 369. As recognised by Richie J in Valero , the reality of the imposition of contra mundum injunction, with the threat of sanctions including fines and imprisonment for breach, is that it is akin to the creation of a criminal offence. It is a prohibition on conduct generally that has been imposed by a Court, not by the democratic process in Parliament. 370. Further, a contra mundum injunction is a prohibition, the alleged breach of which has none of the safeguards that are present in the criminal justice process. If a protestor is alleged to have broken the criminal law, unless exceptionally the prosecution is brought privately, it falls to the Crown Prosecution Service to decide whether to institute criminal proceedings against the protestor and to decide what charge(s) s/he should face. That involves the independent assessment of the evidence and an independent
163
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator