THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE NICKLIN Approved Judgment
MBR Acres Ltd -v- Free the MBR Beagles
on the same date ([29(3)]; (c) online posting to Facebook on 1 August 2022 ([31(5)]); and (d) arrest, on or around 9 August 2022, “ for allegations against MBR and Impex ” (unspecified) ([31(9)]). (2) In respect of the Sixth Defendant, presence at an Impex demonstration on 25 January 2022 [29(8)]. (3) In respect of the Twelfth Defendant, various postings online ([30(2)], [30(3)], [30(4)], [31(2)], [31(5)] and [31(11)]). (4) In respect of the Twentieth Defendant: (a) presence at Impex demonstrations on 18 January 2022 ([29(3)], 25 January 2022 ([29(8)] and on date(s) in August 2022 (photographs of which were subsequently posted on the Free the MBR Beagles Facebook page) ([31(7)]); (b) the disputed incident, on 27 January 2022, in which it is alleged that she drove a vehicle at vehicle driven by the Managing Director of Impex ([29(10)] and [52(1)]); (c) the sending, on or around 19 May 2022, of funeral packs to two employees of the First Claimant ([40(5)]), admitted by the Twentieth Defendant ([52(2)]), for which she has been arrested and is on bail; (d) the confrontation (videoed and subsequently posted online) between her and the Managing Director of Impex on 28 July 2022 and alleged obstruction of his vehicle ([31(4)(c)]); (e) arrest, on or around 9 August 2022, “ for allegations against MBR and Impex ” (unspecified) ([31(9)]); and (f) a posting on Facebook on 18 August 2022 ([31(10)]). (5) In respect of the Twenty-Fifth Defendant, trespass at the Impex site on 18 January 2022 ([29(3)]). I should make clear that these allegations are drawn from the Claimants’ evidence. Whether the Claimants can prove that the relevant Defendant has done the alleged act(s) (to the extent that they are not admitted) would ultimately have to be determined at a trial. 63. In my judgment, the evidence of alleged wrongdoing against these five Defendants does not justify the grant of the variation to the interim injunction sought by the Claimants. 64. First, the evidence falls a long way short of demonstrating past wrongdoing of sufficient seriousness sufficient to justify an injunction. The events are generally isolated, and the conduct complained of varied. I do not attach any weight to the allegations of online posting by these Defendants. None of these posts, either individually or collectively, is sufficient credibly to sustain a claim in harassment with a real prospect of success. Reflecting the need properly to accommodate the width of the right of freedom of expression, the threshold for speech-based harassment is a high one: Hayden -v- Dickenson [2020] EWHC 3291 (QB) [44]; Scottow -v- CPS [2021] 1 WLR 1828 [24]. The Claimants are therefore not likely to succeed with a harassment claim on this basis. In respect of the specific Defendants: (1) As regards the Third Defendant, (unspecified) verbal abuse of someone, in the context of a demonstration, is not likely to sustain a claim in harassment that would justify an order being made in the terms sought by the Claimants (see Injunction Judgment [50(3)(b)]). The only other matter alleged against the
422
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator