THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE NICKLIN Approved Judgment
MBR Acres Ltd -v- McGivern
“I have higher rights within the criminal jurisdiction, but not the civil jurisdiction. I am currently a solicitor advocate with the Credence Law Group based throughout the county of Cambridgeshire. My firm currently acts for a number of people arrested from the Wyton Site in respect of ongoing criminal proceedings. As a result of that association, I have become familiar, of course, with the wider context of activities taking place there and, as such, have offered my assistance as a McKenzie friend to some or all of those defendants currently unrepresented… I have been making my best endeavours over a number of weeks now to locate a firm with a civil [Legal Aid] contract, which would be willing to accept instructions from any defendant who would wish representation and who fundamentally would qualify on their means for public funding.” 20. After Ms McGivern had explained her role, Ms Bolton on behalf of the Claimants stated: “I need to raise one issue with Ms McGivern, which is that Ms McGivern is also a protester at the site and has also breached the injunction, and, therefore, she would be walking a very difficult tightrope, I think, if she was in the position of having to do the advocacy…” 21. Despite the clear statement by Ms Bolton, presumably on instructions, that Ms McGivern was a “ protester ” who had “ breached the injunction ”, no indication was given at this hearing that the Claimants intended to bring a contempt application against her. I did not consider it appropriate, or necessary, at this hearing to inquire further into allegations that Ms McGivern had herself breached the Injunction. 22. Following this hearing, the Claimants did not send Ms McGivern any letter setting out their contention that she was a “ protester ” who had breached the Injunction, or providing details of the alleged breach, and inviting her to comment or provide her explanation. The contempt application made by the Claimants was the first that Ms McGivern learned about the circumstances in which she was alleged to have breached the Injunction. 23. The contempt application was filed on 4 July 2022. It alleged that, on 4 May 2022, Ms McGivern was guilty of the following 8 breaches of the Injunction: i) between 15.06 and 16.14, Ms McGivern parked a white Vauxhall (sic) Golf motor car [registration given] in the Exclusion Zone, in breach of paragraph 1(3) of the Injunction; ii) between 15.06 and 16.04, Ms McGivern entered the Exclusion Zone, in breach of paragraph 1(2) of the Injunction; iii) between 16.00 and 16.01, Ms McGivern approached and/or obstructed the path of a white Nissan Juke motor car driven by a contractor to the First Claimant as that vehicle was directly exiting and/or entering the Exclusion Zone, in breach of paragraph 1(4) of the Injunction; iv) between 16.03 and 16.04, Ms McGivern approached and/or obstructed the path of a white Nissan Juke motor car driven by a contractor to the First Claimant as that vehicle was directly exiting and/or entering the Exclusion Zone, in breach of paragraph 1(4) of the Injunction;
439
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator