THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE NICKLIN Approved Judgment
MBR Acres Ltd -v- Free the MBR Beagles
Third Defendant is that he has been present at an Impex demonstration. That cannot justify an order in the terms sought. As the Claimants are unable to shed any further light on why the Third Defendant has been arrested, that piece of the evidence takes matters no further forward. (2) The only allegation made against the Sixth Defendant is that he attended an Impex demonstration on 25 January 2022. For the same reasons, that cannot justify an order being made in the terms sought against him. (3) The complaint about the Twelfth Defendant is limited exclusively to his online postings. The case against him is therefore entirely based on speech-based activity. If credible and sufficient evidence can be produced demonstrating that a person has been inciting specific people to commit civil wrongs, then the Court might be prepared to grant an injunction in specific terms to restrain such conduct. However, the Court would proceed with caution where, as here, the alleged “ incitement ” is in the context of protest speech. I am not persuaded that the Claimants’ evidence shows a case that is likely to succeed at trial, and certainly not likely to lead to the imposition of the terms of the variation sought against the Twelfth Defendant. (4) The evidence against the Twentieth Defendant is more substantial. (a) I discount the evidence that shows no more than presence at Impex demonstrations. (b) The admitted sending of funeral packs to two employees of the First Claimant is potentially harassing conduct that, at this stage, I am satisfied the Claimants are likely to succeed in demonstrating should not be allowed. The issue, here is the terms of the restriction that is likely to be imposed after a trial and what, if any, interim restriction should be imposed by the Court. On this issue, two linked factors are of relevance. First, the Twentieth Defendant is not alleged to have done any other acts targeting employees in a way that is alleged to amount to harassment. Second, and possibly linked to the first, the bail conditions imposed on the Twentieth Defendant prevent her from contacting any employee of the First Claimant. There is no suggestion that the Twentieth Defendant has breached her bail conditions. As such, I am not persuaded that there is a present threat from the Twentieth Defendant that she is likely to repeat any similar acts of harassment of the First Claimants’ employees. If the evidence changes, the Claimants always can reapply for a variation of the interim injunction.
(c)
Perhaps the strongest case is in relation to the Twentieth Defendant’s apparent targeting of the Managing Director of Impex. However, this evidence is limited to two incidents. The first of those – the incident of allegedly driving at the Managing Director’s car – is disputed by the Twentieth Defendant, and the Claimants’ evidence has been presented in an unsatisfactory format (hearsay and a letter from the Managing Director). On the balance of probabilities, the Claimants’ evidence does not satisfy me that this is an incident of harassment. The second is an incident of alleged obstruction of the Managing Director’s car.
423
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator