THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE NICKLIN Approved Judgment
MBR Acres Ltd -v- Free the MBR Beagles
been convicted of offences and 4 people had been found not guilty following trial or in respect of whom the case was dismissed, although there were others in respect of whom criminal prosecutions were pending as at the date of the statement. 47. The data in the table shows that, since the grant of the original interim injunction, on 20 August 2021, there have been 9 arrests, leading to 7 people being charged. Of those, at the date of Superintendent Sissons’ statement, two people were awaiting trial, one person had been found guilty of an offence under s.4A Public Order Act 1986 and fined £100 and ordered to pay £100 in costs; one person had been found not guilty at trial and another had the charge s/he faced dismissed at court; and no further action was taken in respect of one person who was arrested on suspicion of assault. After the exclusion zone was imposed by the varied interim injunction on 10 November 2021, there have been three arrests, leading to the charge of one person with a single count of criminal damage. That is an arrest rate of 1 person every two months. Those who have been arrested and/or charged have often had bail conditions imposed which prevent the relevant individual from attending the Wyton Site. 48. As to the impact of the interim injunction and the subsequent addition of the exclusion zone, Superintendent Sissons’ evidence was as follows: “10. I have been asked to consider the impact that the interim injunction and the subsequent addition of an exclusion zone has had on protest activity. This is difficult as there are several factors that have influenced protest activity and I would not be able to attribute one factor having more influence than another. The main influencing factors are affected by: 11. Protester activity - over the past twelve months protest activity has changed dramatically. Initially there was a focus on having a physical presence daily (with the intention of influencing MBR staff members as they entered and exited the site) and large “Demonstration Days” at weekends with organised speeches. If the injunction and exclusion area had been in place during this period, then I would have anticipated that its impact would have been significant. 12 As the winter months/poorer weather conditions developed then physical numbers at the site reduced to only a few being physically present meaning the injunction impact was limited. During this period protest activity seemed to focus more on social media with the intention of influencing the social network of workers and companies involved in MBR’s supply chain. For example, I am aware that the operational premises of a company used for animal movement was identified (situated outside of Cambridgeshire) [Impex] and intensive physical protest activity occurred at that location. Most recently there has been protest activity at the home addresses of MBR staff. 13. These new developments in protest activity have limited the impact that the injunction and the exclusion zone have had; albeit it is appreciated that there is a possibility that a large physical presence both daily and at special events may occur again in the future. 14 MBR activity – throughout the twelve-month protest, MBR have altered their response to the above changes in protester activity. There have been
416
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator