Jockey Club v Persons unknown
SIR ANTHONY MANN Approved Judgment
7. When the race meeting took place the event was heavily policed and stewarded. One protester entered the actual racetrack by way of protest shortly after the race had started. That was a Mr Ben Newman. He was duly charged with a public order offence and served a number of weeks in prison on remand. He was joined as 9 th defendant to these proceedings and also became the subject of committal proceedings for infringement of my order and on 11 October 2023 he was sentenced by Miles J to 2 months imprisonment, suspended. 8. These proceedings were restored before Roth J on 15 March 2024, on which occasion he ordered that Mr Kidby and Mr Newman take appropriate steps if they were going to defend the claim against them and gave permission to the Jockey Club to file further evidence. The Club duly availed itself of that opportunity. 9. Shortly after the hearing before Roth J Mr Kidby and Mr Newman both settled with the Jockey Club, giving undertakings not to do the acts complained of, those undertakings lasting five years. Thus for practical purposes they fell out of these proceedings and they continued as proceedings against the various categories of persons unknown to which I have referred above. In a witness statement dated 4 October 2023 Mr Newman accepted that he had wrongfully breached the injunction and reflected on the fact that his time in prison had caused him to reflect on his actions and he expressed his regret for them. In his case it would appear that the threat of prison had become a real deterrent. One can draw the inference that it would be the same for others. 10. The evidence before me on this occasion comprised, first, a witness statement of Mr Nevin Truesdale, chief executive of the Jockey Club, which was the witness statement originally provided in support of these Part 8 proceedings and which was deployed on the interim application before me (along with other limited witness statements). That evidence set out the property background to the case and the reasons for supposing that persons were proposing to disrupt the race and thereby commit trespasses. Pursuant to the permission given by Roth J Mr Truesdale filed a second witness statement signed on 5 April 2024. That witness statement gives evidence of various public pronouncements of Animal Rising on its website, on its Facebook page and in press releases. That material boasted of previous activities of its members in disruptive protests and indicated intentions to carry on activities including disrupting race meetings, albeit that a press release of 4 April 2024 stated that it would not target the Grand National this year and it was suspending its campaign of direct action against racing indefinitely. The reason for not targeting the Grand National meeting was said to be that there was a “huge public conversation” since the Grand National and Derby, and it would appear that the public had in large part been convinced that they do not want racing to be part of the fabric of British culture going forward. The claimant does not accept the genuineness of that analysis. Mr Truesdale gave evidence of attendance figures at some race meetings which gainsay it and points to statements on the then website which threatened disruption of race meetings. That is material on the basis of which I am invited to view with suspicion any protestations that animal rising does not intend to disrupt race meetings. He also pointed to the disruption of other sporting events by other activists, such as throwing confetti, jigsaw puzzle pieces and orange paint variously at Wimbledon, the golf Open Championship, the Ashes and the World Snooker Championship. I am invited to infer, and I do, that the claimant’s race meetings are potentially vulnerable to such protests even if Animal Rising is genuine in its
6
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator