THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE NICKLIN Approved Judgment
MBR Acres Ltd -v- McGivern
“The ‘Exclusion Zone’ is… for the purpose of the Wyton site, the area with black hatching at Annex 1 of this Order measuring 20 meters in length either side of the midpoint of the gate to the entrance of the Wyton site and extending out to the midpoint of the carriageway…”
14. Annex 1 to the Injunction was a plan of the Wyton Site marked with the Exclusion Zone around the entrance to the First Claimant’s premises. Annex 1 included boxes containing annotations. One of those provided:
“Exclusion zone in black crosshatched area is 20 metres either side of the centre of the Gate to the Wyton Site marked by posts on the grass verge up to the centre of the carriageway.”
15. The evidence of the protest activities at the Wyton Site was set out in the Injunction Judgment ([17]). In summary, this evidence demonstrated that there were continuing issues with protesters blocking access to the Wyton Site and surrounding vehicles of those entering or leaving the Wyton Site and subjecting the occupants to abuse. I was satisfied that this justified the imposition of the exclusion zone immediately outside the gates to the Wyton Site and a prohibition on obstructing vehicles directly entering or leaving the exclusion zone. I explained my reasons in the Injunction Judgment: [117]An injunction in these terms is justified on the evidence provided by the Claimants. The flashpoint has been the confrontations that have taken place between the protestors and those seeking to enter or leave the Wyton Site. Insofar as the protestors’ presence immediately outside the gates of the Wyton Site is not a trespass, it is sufficiently arguable that it would be unlawful for the Defendants to prevent people entering or leaving the Wyton Site to justify an injunction in these terms. At this stage, I am satisfied that the restrictions I intend to impose are necessary to protect the rights of the First and Third Claimants (and those the “Protected Persons” represented by the Second and Fourth Claimants) and that these restrictions are proportionate to that aim. The protestors’ rights of freedom of expression and/or assembly are restricted only to a limited extent and those restrictions are necessary and proportionate to protect the legitimate interests of the Claimants. I note that imposition of an exclusion order - rather than a restriction on “ harassment ” - was also the measure adopted by Warby J as the principal method of striking the balance between the rights of protestors and others in Birmingham City Council -v- Afsar [2019] EWHC 1560 (QB) . [118] The injunction will not be made under the [the Protection from Harassment Act 1997]. I consider that, at this stage, the Court should address the issues raised by the Claimants by a territorial order, rather than an order intended to restrain “ harassment ”. For the reasons explained above, injunctions to prohibit “ harassment ”, in the context of demonstrations, are inherently problematic and appropriate terms of an injunction almost impossible to devise. If there is another way of the Court solving the problem, then that is to be preferred. On the evidence, I think it likely that, if the restrictions imposed by the injunction are observed, then future demonstrations will avoid the sort of confrontations that have given rise to the feelings of harassment and intimidation felt by some of those entering and leaving the Wyton Site. I appreciate that the Exclusion Zone will potentially restrain otherwise lawful activity. However, I am satisfied that such a restriction, imposed on an interim
437
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator