THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE NICKLIN Approved Judgment
MBR Acres Ltd -v- McGivern
formal. I was also professionally dressed at the time. I do not recall seeing the intercom bell, which I am told later was on the right-hand side of the gate, on the Claimants’ land. 19. The person I spoke to did not respond. I did not know if he understood my requests for information. I did not know if perhaps he had radioed for a colleague to come and answer my questions. This seemed likely, as I was dressed like a lawyer having come from court. 20. This man certainly did not tell me there was an injunction, nor did he ask me to leave. He seemed to pretend I did not exist. 21. I became increasingly frustrated, as the noticeboard to the left was of no help to me. This was my opportunity to ask questions. I therefore remained until it was clear that I was not going to receive any assistance. 22. I accept that two vehicles could not leave whilst I was asking my questions and seeking clarification. I apologies unreservedly for the inconvenience this caused. Had someone mentioned the injunction or said it is on the noticeboard on the other side of the site, I would have gone and had a look. 23. I do not accept that I was shaking my head in disapproval. I believe I was disenchanted by the shouting coming from behind me. I did not know who was exiting the site. I was hoping it was someone that could tell me about the injunction, such as a member of staff. I just did not understand why no one would communicate with me. I have never experience a situation like this before. 24. I had absolutely no intention to inflame the situation as Ms Pressick suggests in her statement. What possible benefit would this have and it did not accord with my professional duty and standing as a solicitor. 25. I had no prior interaction with the people present. I had not idea at all how they would react to the gate opening and cars leaving. I reject the assertion that my presence did inflame the protestors. I am told that they respond in the same way every time a car enters or exits the site and as I understand it, is in part the case against the defendants to the civil injunction. 26. When I crossed to the other side of the road I do not recall if I went behind the barriers. I was not at any time aware of any Noticeboard. 27. When I entered into the exclusion zone, as I now know, and on to the strip of road in front of the gate, I was trying to communicate with staff there to find out what was going on. If I had seen the intercom I would have pressed the bell and asked to speak to someone, after the security guard refused to speak with me. When I stepped on to the land I was clearly communicating or trying to read the notice board closest to the gate to try and work out what the injunction was about but this noticeboard did not have the terms of the injunction. It was obvious to anyone observing me that I was new to the site and likely to be a professional such as a solicitor from what I was wearing. 38. As to her knowledge of the injunction, Ms McGivern stated as follows in her First Witness Statement:
445
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator