THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE NICKLIN Approved Judgment
MBR Acres Ltd -v- Free the MBR Beagles
complaints regarding their presence and at times the way that they are flown i.e. close to buildings and persons. There is currently no criminal legislative framework that prevents the use of drones (if flown appropriately) to capture images and then circulated on social media. With regards to this, we are seeking advice from the Civil Aviation Authority in appreciation that the constabulary are not the primary legislative guardians in this area.”
(5) Evidence from the relevant named Defendants 52. Ms Jaffray, the Twentieth Defendant, attended the hearing on 7 October 2022 remotely. She spoke at the hearing and had also provided a witness statement. She responded to the allegations made against her as follows: (1) She confirmed that she had been arrested in relation to the allegation that she had driven her vehicle at a vehicle that was being driven by the Impex Managing Director (see [29(10)] above). She denied having done so. She stated that she had been released following arrest for the police to investigate and then the matter was “ dropped ”, she believed in early March 2022. (2) She confirmed that she had been arrested for having sent the funeral brochures to two employees of the First Claimant (see [40(5)] above), that she had been arrested for this and was subject to bail conditions which prohibited her from contacting or publishing the personal details of any member of the First Claimant’s staff. Although I gave Ms Jaffray the required warning against self-incrimination, she candidly admitted sending the brochures as alleged. She added that she had complied with her bail conditions. By the time of hearing on 7 October 2022, and the narrowing down of the variation application, the Claimants’ submissions were focused on the alleged targeting of the First Claimant’s employees and those of Impex, which the Claimants contend is harassment. 54. For the Claimants, Ms Bolton submitted that the variations sought to the interim injunction under sub-paragraph (5) are “ tailored ” to restrain specific harassing conduct that has occurred and is likely to occur in the future. As such, the Claimants contend that such relief is both proportionate and necessary. 55. As the principal target of the variation application is “Persons Unknown”, few individual named Defendants made any submissions. Those that did mainly questioned whether the Claimants’ evidence justified any order being made and, in particular, whether it justified the extension of any injunction to the named Defendants. 56. On this point, Ms Bolton submitted that, notwithstanding that the Claimants have no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of many of the named Defendants, they can nevertheless properly apprehend that, were an injunction not granted, these Defendants would nevertheless threaten and intend to commit the relevant acts. During the hearing, I asked Ms Bolton, specifically, why I should grant an injunction, in the terms of sub-paragraph (5), against a named Defendant when, in respect of whom, there was no evidence demonstrating that s/he had committed any of the acts or any D: Submissions 53.
419
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator