THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE NICKLIN Approved Judgment
MBR Acres Ltd -v- Free the MBR Beagles
(9)
On 22 August 2022: (a)
Employee U is alleged to have been followed home by a protestor, an incident that was reported to the police; and a named individual, not a Defendant to the proceedings, is alleged to have posted on social media, listing the registration numbers of what were believed to be cars of MBR employees seeking information as to how to work out who owned the cars.
(b)
(10) Ms Pressick alleges that, on 13 August 2022, Camp Beagle posted online that the Third Defendant had also been arrested for “ allegations surrounding actions against MBR and Impex ”. Ms Pressick states that she does not know why the Third Defendant has been arrested and she appears not to have sought further information about this from the police. (11) Employee Q has been the target of abuse on social media and, in the early hours of 28 September 2022, a car belonging to him/her was vandalised, including being spray-painted with the words “ puppy-killer ”. (12) On 27 September 2022, four members of the First Claimant’s staff received letters at their home addresses. Each stated: “ PUPPY KILLER!!! DON’T GO TO WORK OR WE’LL TELL ALL YOUR NEIGHBOURS ”. Ms Pressick states that “ this is clearly worrying for the employees ”. (13) On 30 September 2022, Employee A was driving past ‘Camp Beagle’ (the encampment of the protestors that has been set up near to the Wyton Site) and alleges that an object was thrown at his/her vehicle which smashed the windscreen. Fortunately, no one was hurt in the incident. Ms Pressick states that employees are reporting incidents to the police as appropriate. (3) Vandalism of the noticeboard outside the Wyton Site 41. Sub-paragraph (6) of the variation sought by the Claimants to the injunction relates to damage that has been caused to the noticeboard opposite the Wyton Site. The noticeboard is, in fact, a locked glass fronted cabinet in which a copy of the interim injunction order (and other documents) is displayed. Display of the injunction order outside the Wyton Site was the method of alternative service of the Claim Form for which permission has been granted in respect of the various categories of Persons Unknown Defendants (see [3]-[5] above). 42. Alleged damage to the noticeboard is not a claim that is presently included in the Particulars of Claim. In her seventeenth witness statement, Ms Pressick says that the noticeboard has been “ repeatedly vandalised ”, principally by spray painting. Ms Pressick states: “The vandalism of the noticeboard is especially vexatious as the protestors know that the Claimants must display the Injunction Order on the noticeboard to ensure that Persons Unknown have been effectively served with the Injunction Order. the repeated vandalism of the noticeboard does appear to be an attempt to hinder and
413
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator