THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE NICKLIN Approved Judgment
MBR Acres Ltd -v- Free the MBR Beagles
Ms Pressick states that Employee F feared for his/her personal safety and that of his/her family. The matter was reported to the police. (3) On 8 March 2022, a post appeared on the ‘Huntingdon Locals Free the MBR Beagles’ Facebook page which included the social media profiles of eight members of MBR’s staff with derogatory comments and an encouragement to “ screenshot and share before Facebook protect the puppy killers ”. Ms Pressick states that this action caused at least one employee to quit their job. (4) On 5 May 2022: (a) Employee DM’s house had the word “ scum ” spraypainted on the front door. (b) Employee K had the words “ puppy killer ” and “ puppy kill scum ” spraypainted on his/her car; (c) Employee K had the words “ puppy kill scum ” painted on his/her house and also on his/her neighbour’s house. On nearby walls was spraypainted the words “ [Employee L] is a puppy killer ” and “ [Employee L] kills beagles at MBR acres ”. (5) On 19 May 2022, funeral packs were sent to Employee DM and Employee F. Ms Pressick states that Employee F has told her that the police have stated that the Twentieth Defendant was arrested, on 10 August 2022, in relation to this and is subject to bail conditions that she must not contact or publish the details of any employee or contractor of the First Claimant. Ms Pressick has previously provided evidence of alleged targeting by protestors of Employee F in her fifth, ninth, tenth and sixteenth witness statements. (6) Overnight between 18-19 July 2022, Employee F had a poster stating “ [Employee F] kills puppies ” stuck to the outside of his/her house. (7) On 20 July 2022, the Thirteenth Defendant is alleged to have posted on her Facebook page: “ This morning Tee was found guilty of criminal damage – Spray painting ‘scum’ on animal abuser [DM]’s front door. She received 150 community work and £259 fine/compensation. ” This related to an incident, on 5 May 2022, at the home of one of the First Claimant’s employees, described in more detail in Ms Pressick’s tenth witness statement. Ms Pressick identifies the person that she believes to be “Tee”. The name is not one that I recognise as having been involved in any other incidents and the Claimants have not sought to join this person as a named defendant to these proceedings. (8) On 1 August 2022, Employee D was followed by a protestor on his/her way home from the Wyton Site. It is alleged that the protestor then posted on social media a photograph of Employee D in his/her car, with the comment: “ Shame I caught one of the workers without he’s (sic) poor mask on driving home after I left the protest, soon pulled he’s (sic) mask up, bit late for that” and “clocked the registration and got my Mrs to check on the video protest, was driving the a14 so followed him and got a video, shame the sun was on he’s (sic) window but a good enough view. ”
412
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator