MR JUSTICE NICKLIN Approved Judgment
MBR Acres Ltd -v- Curtin
392. The inclusion of the words “ direct and deliberate ” is also required in the contra mundum injunction, for the same reasons as they are needed in the injunction against Mr Curtin (see [384] above). There is a further important reason why these words are required in the contra mundum order. They will ensure that if a group of protestors lawfully processed along the B1090, and past the entrance of the Wyton Site, for the time they were passing the entrance they would probably prevent a vehicle leaving or entering the Wyton Site. It would be a serious interference to the right of lawful protest, for the contra mundum injunction (by an unintended side wind) to prohibit such a procession. This is to be contrasted with a group of protestors assembling outside the Wyton Site (as has happened in the past) which deliberately and directly obstructs vehicles attempting to leave or enter the Wyton Site. This conduct the injunction intends to prevent. 393. Although the First Claimant has demonstrated that there is a continuing risk that large scale demonstrations may be of such a size and duration that they may amount to a public nuisance, it has not demonstrated a compelling case that a contra mundum injunction is needed to tackle this risk or that it is just and convenient to make an order in these terms. 394. First, a public nuisance on this scale is primarily a matter for the police, who have ample powers to deal with both obstruction of the highway and public nuisance. I am satisfied that the police are using their powers appropriately and, in doing so, are setting the right balance between the legitimate interests of the First Claimant and the rights of protestors. 395. Second, whether the obstruction of a highway amounts to a public nuisance is entirely dependent upon a factual assessment of what happened on a particular occasion. It clearly does not fit into the category identified by the Supreme Court in Wolverhampton [143(iv)]. It is virtually impossible to fashion an injunction to restrain public nuisance that complies with the requirements reiterated by the Supreme Court (see [352] above). There is an obvious risk that granting an injunction that was targeted at prohibiting public nuisance would in fact chill perfectly lawful protest activity. 396. The First Claimant has not demonstrated that there is a compelling need for an Exclusion Zone to be imposed contra mundum . Even if such an order was directed specifically at protestors, it would still be very problematic. As I have already noted in the context of Mr Curtin’s claim, the Exclusion Zone was a temporary expedient granted as an interim measure. It has largely had the desired effect of removing the main flashpoint in the demonstrations. I understand, therefore, why the First Claimant wishes to see it maintained. However, the central objection to this being continued contra mundum is that it restrains acts that are not even arguably unlawful. When it is remembered that the Court is going to prohibit obstruction of vehicles entering or leaving the Wyton Site, it is also difficult to argue that this further restriction is necessary. For that part of the Exclusion Zone that is part of the highway, it is, in my judgment, for the police to deal with obstructions of the highway that are anything more than transitory. There may be scope for an Exclusion Zone to be imposed in protest cases (c.f. those imposed around abortion clinics), but that is best done by a Public Spaces Protection Order, not a civil injunction. 397. For vehicles that are leaving or entering the Wyton Site via the public highway, obstruction of those vehicles will be prohibited. That aspect of the “ flashpoint ” will
168
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator