Docusign Envelope ID: ABA671A3-E271-4EC4-AB06-1088FEC37456
Filed on behalf of the Claimant Witness statement of Mr Charlie Boss Statement No 1 Date: Exhibits: CB1 24 June 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE THE BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES BUSINESS LIST (Ch D)
CLAIM NO.:BL-2023-000713
BETWEEN:
JOCKEY CLUB RACECOURSES LIMITED
Claimant
-and-
(1) MR DANIEL FRANK PETER KIDBY (2) PERSONS UNKNOWN ENTERING THE AREA DESCRIBED BELOW AS THE “RACE TRACK” ON THE DAY OF A “RACING FIXTURE”, EXCEPT AT “CROSSING POINTS” WITH “AUTHORISATION”, AS DESCRIBED BELOW (3) PERSONS UNKNOWN ENTERING AND/OR REMAINING ON ANY “CROSSING POINTS” WITHOUT “AUTHORISATION” ON THE DAY OF A “RACING FIXTURE”, AS DESCRIBED BELOW (4) PERSONS UNKNOWN ENTERING THE AREA DESCRIBED BELOW AS THE “PARADE RING” WITHOUT “AUTHORISATION” ON THE DAY OF A “RACING FIXTURE”, AS DESCRIBED BELOW (5) PERSONS UNKNOWN ENTERING AND/OR REMAINING ON ANY PART OF THE AREAS DESCRIBED BELOW AS THE “HORSES’ ROUTE TO THE PARADE RING” AND/OR THE “HORSES’ ROUTE TO THE RACE TRACK” WITHOUT “AUTHORISATION” ON THE DAY OF A “RACING FIXTURE”, AS DESCRIBED BELOW (6) PERSONS UNKNOWN INTENTIONALLY OBSTRUCTING THE “HORSE RACES”, AS DESCRIBED BELOW (7) PERSONS UNKNOWN INTENTIONALLY CAUSING ANY OBJECT TO ENTER ONTO AND/OR REMAIN ON THE “RACE TRACK” WITHOUT “AUTHORISATION” ON THE DAY OF A “RACING FIXTURE”, AS DESCRIBED BELOW (8) PERSONS UNKNOWN INTENTIONALLY ENDANGERING ANY PERSON AT THE LOCATION DESCRIBED BELOW AS THE “EPSOM RACECOURSE” ON THE DAY OF A “RACING FIXTURE”, AS DESCRIBED BELOW (9) MR BEN NEWMAN Defendants
___________________________________________________
FIRST WITNESS STATEMENT OF CHARLIE BOSS ___________________________________________________
I, Charlie Boss, of the Jockey Club Racecourses Limited, 21-27 Lambs Conduit St, London,
WC1N 3NL, WILL SAY as follows:
1. I am the Interim Group Chief Executive of the Claimant and have held this position since 9
December 2025. I was previously Chief Commercial Officer of the Claimant between March
2021 and April 2023. In April 2023, I left the Claimant for a role at Southampton Football
Club, before rejoining the Claimant following the departure of Nevin Truesdale. I am also
Vice Chair of London Sport.
1
Docusign Envelope ID: ABA671A3-E271-4EC4-AB06-1088FEC37456
2. This is my first witness statement in these proceedings. I am duly authorised by the
Claimant to make this statement on its behalf in support of its application for an order that
the injunction, in the terms of the Order of Sir Anthony Mann dated 9 July 2024 and sealed
on 10 July 2024 (the “ Injunction ” and “ Final Injunction Order ” , respectively), be continued
for the remainder of the five-year period set out in the Final Injunction Order, subject to further annual review (the “ Application ”). 1
3. Unless stated otherwise, the facts and matters set out in this witness statement are within
my knowledge and are true. Where any facts or matters are not within my own knowledge,
the source of the information is identified and those facts and matters are true to the best of
my knowledge and belief.
4. There is now produced and shown to me marked exhibit "CB1", a bundle of true copy
documents to which I refer in the course of this witness statement. Save where stated
otherwise, references below to page numbers are to the pages of exhibit "CB1". There is
now also produced and shown to me the two bundles of evidence filed ahead of the
disposal hearing on 8 July 2024 (the “ Evidence Bundle ") and the (the “ Additional
Evidence Bundle ").
Background
5. The background to this matter has been set out extensively in:
5.1
the first and second witness statements of Nevin Truesdale, Chief Executive Officer of the Claimant between August 2020 and December 2024 2 (“ Truesdale 1 ” and “ Truesdale 2 ”), and the Affidavit of Nevin Truesdale (given in Committal Proceedings against the Ninth Defendant, summarised below); 3
5.2
the first witness statement of Amy Starkey, Managing Director of Racecourses of the
Claimant between May 2024 and May 2025, previously Managing Director of East, London and Small Courses from January 2023 to June 2024 4 (“ Starkey 1 ”) ;
5.3
the first witness statement of Dickon White, Aintree and North-West Regional Director for the Claimant 5 (“ White 1 ”) ;
5.4
the first witness statement of Simon Knapp, Senior Veterinary Surgeon for London Region Races at the Claimant 6 (“ Knapp 1 ”) ; and
1 Pages 2-9 of CB1 2 Pages 249-263 / 531-539 of the Evidence Bundle 3 Pages 4-19 of the Evidence Bundle
4 Pages 382-406 of the Evidence Bundle 5 Pages 407-440 of the Evidence Bundle 6 Pages 441-445 of the Evidence Bundle
2
Docusign Envelope ID: ABA671A3-E271-4EC4-AB06-1088FEC37456
5.5
the first and second witness statements of Julian Diaz-Rainey, partner of the firm, Pinsent Masons LLP, solicitors for the Claimant 7 8 (“ Diaz-Rainey 1 ” and “ Diaz-Rainey
2 ”) .
6. In summary, the Claimant is the largest commercial horseracing organisation in the UK, and
the freehold owner of the Epsom Racecourse (the “ Racecourse ”) (further background
information in respect of the Claimant is set out at paragraphs 7 to 9, and 18 to 19 of
Truesdale 1, and paragraphs 5 and 8 to 10 of Truesdale 2).
7. The Claimant hosts the two-day Epsom Derby Festival, with the prestigious Epsom Derby
race held on the first Saturday of June each year. Further background to the Derby Festival
is set out in paragraphs 13 to 17 of Truesdale 1.
8. A summary of the proceedings to date is set out below, as context for the evidence given in
my witness statement. I was not personally involved in these proceedings up until the
present Application; however, I have read the witness statements and affidavit listed above,
and the orders in these proceedings referenced below, and was further informed of the
details of these proceedings by Nevin Truesdale when taking up my present position.
8.1
Animal rights protesters affiliated with the group Animal Rising (“ AR ”), caused
significant disruption to the 2022 Derby, the 2023 Grand National, and further races in
Ayre and Doncaster in 2023 (as set out in Truesdale 1, paragraphs 35 to 48, and
White 1). Following these incidents, and the widespread publication of protesters’
plans similarly to disrupt the Epsom Derby in June 2023, the Claimant applied for an
interim injunction against the First to Eighth Defendants on 22 May 2023, to restrain
acts of trespass and disruption to the races at the Racecourse. The Court granted the
interim injunction in the terms of the order of Sir Anthony Mann dated 26 May 2023 (the “ Interim Injunction Order ”) . 9
8.2
The Interim Injunction Order was knowingly breached by Mr Newman who ran onto
the racetrack during the running of the Epsom Derby on 3 June 2023, exposing
himself, the horses and jockeys, police officers and stewards, and wider racegoers to serious danger. I refer the Court to the statements of PC Stevens 10 and PC Hodgkins, 11 and the Affidavit of Nevin Truesdale at paragraphs 41 to 48. Mr Newman
was subsequently arrested, charged and found guilty of a public order offence. Having
been denied bail following his arrest and spending approximately one month in prison,
Mr Newman was given an 18-week suspended sentence, ordered to complete 80
hours of unpaid work, and ordered to pay costs (as set out in Mr Truesdale’s affidavit,
7 Pages 446-471 of the Evidence Bundle 8 Pages 3-7 of the Additional Evidence Bundle 9 Pages 1044 - 1059 of the Evidence Bundle 10 Pages 209 - 211 of the Evidence Bundle 11 Pages 212 -214 of the Evidence Bundle
3
Docusign Envelope ID: ABA671A3-E271-4EC4-AB06-1088FEC37456
paragraphs 49 to 51). By knowingly breaching the Order, Mr Newman joined himself
as Ninth Defendant to these proceedings.
8.3
The Claimant brought a successful contempt of court application against Mr Newman
(the “ Committal Proceedings ”) . By the order of Mr Justice Miles dated 13 October
2023, Mr Newman was given a further suspended custodial sentence (the “ Committal Order ”). 12 During the Committal Proceedings (as recorded in the Committal Order), Mr
Newman admitted to having breached the Interim Injunction Order, and gave
undertakings to comply with the terms of the injunction until 11 April 2025, or until he
was no longer bound by an injunction in these proceedings.
8.4
In April 2024, Mr Kidby and Mr Newman, the First and Ninth Defendants, each gave
undertakings to the Court that they would not carry out the acts set out in the Interim
Injunction Order for a period of five years, in exchange for the Claimant agreeing not
to pursue costs against them. On the basis of the foregoing, it was ordered by consent
on 22 April 2024, that the Claim be stayed as against the First and Ninth Defendants.
8.5
On 10 July 2024, Sir Anthony Mann, sitting as a High Court Judge, granted the
Claimant’s application for a Final Injunction Order in the terms of the Interim Injunction
Order. Pursuant to paragraph 4 of the Final Injunction Order, the injunction was to
remain in force for five years, subject to annual review.
9. The present Application is brought pursuant to paragraph 5 of the Final Injunction Order. I
understand that the Claimant is subject to a duty of full and frank disclosure in making the
present Application, and in this witness statement, I seek to update the Court on all relevant
facts and matters accordingly.
The Epsom Racecourse
10. Paragraphs 20 to 27 of Truesdale 1 set out the particular geography of the Epsom
Racecourse, relevant both to the need for, and operation of, the Injunction. Aerial photographs of Epsom Racecourse are included in Truesdale 1. 13 There have been no
material changes to the layout, or use of, the Racecourse and Race Track (as defined at
paragraph 3(6) of the Final Injunction Order) since Mr Truesdale’s evidence was given, and
since the Final Injunction Order was granted in July 2024.
11. I note, in particular, that the Racecourse is particularly vulnerable to trespass. This is
because, unlike other racecourses, it is possible for the public, with no requirement for a
ticket, to enter a large area in the centre of the Racecourse referred to as “the Hill”, as well
as to other areas, to watch the Derby and other racing fixtures.
12 Pages 1060 - 1064 of the Evidence Bundle 13 Pages 276 – 281 of the Evidence Bundle
4
Docusign Envelope ID: ABA671A3-E271-4EC4-AB06-1088FEC37456
12. Moreover, the angles of the Race Track mean that acts of trespass during a race are
particularly dangerous for all those present – human and equine. This is because there are
several ‘b l ind corners’, which mean that a protester may be unable to see the horses and
jockeys running at pace down the track, and vice versa. Indeed, the suffragette, Emily
Davison, lost her life on one such blind corner in 1913.
13. I also confirm that, as set out at paragraphs 28 to 34 of Truesdale 1, equine safety remains
fundamental to everything the Claimant does and to the sport of horse racing. The Claimant
continues to invest in its facilities to ensure it offers equine participants the best, and safest
possible experience. This ranges from investments in safe racing surfaces and cushioned
horsewalks to state-of-the-art misting fans, washdown areas, appropriate trot up areas to
allow for detailed veterinary evaluations and padded hurdles. Every aspect of care and
safety is considered. The racing industry has heavily invested in statistical analysis of falls
and fatalities in order that we can understand where the risks are and improve safety. A
recent British Horseracing Authority report found that 99.5% of horses that race finish safely i.e., without any form of long-term injury 14 .
The continued compelling need for an injunction
14. As noted above, animal rights protesters affiliated with AR caused significant disruption to
numerous racing events in 2022 and 2023. Such disruption continued even with the interim
injunction in place, which Mr Newman knowingly breached (as he admitted in the Committal
Proceedings) on 3 June 2023. It was not until after the successful Committal Proceedings
against Mr Newman in October 2023, that I believe the full force of the injunction was
understood by prospective protesters, such that no disruptions have since occurred at the
Racecourse. In my view, this shows that the injunction is working, and that if it were no
longer in place, there would be a real and imminent threat of further disruption to the races
at the Racecourse.
15. Disruptive protests were not staged at the Grand National held this year on 5 April 2025, or
the Epsom Derby on 7 June 2025. In that respect, the situation remains the same as it was
in July 2024, when the five-year injunction was granted over the Epsom Racecourse, shortly
after the running of the 2024 Grand National and the 2024 Epsom Derby without disruption.
AR has, however, continued publicly to call for an end to horseracing, and to celebrate
direct protest action at horseracing events, as set out below. Accordingly, I do not consider
that the threat of disruptive protests, absent an injunction, has truly gone away.
16. As addressed in paragraphs 6 to 9 of Diaz-Rainey 2, AR updated its website shortly before
the Final Injunction hearing on 8 July 2024, removing references to its plans to disrupt
horse-racing activities (as referenced in paragraph 22 of Truesdale 2). However, AR
continued at that time to trumpet its disruptions of horseracing in the “ previous campaigns ”
14 Pages 19 – 59 of CB1
5
Docusign Envelope ID: ABA671A3-E271-4EC4-AB06-1088FEC37456
section of its website and across social media (as described in paragraphs 10 to 15 of Diaz-
Rainey 2). For example, AR co-founder, Alex Lockwood, celebrated the 2023 Derby in a YouTube video 15 as AR’s “ biggest press day ever ” which helped the group to further its aims
and agenda.
17. AR has since made further changes to its website. However, I believe these only
demonstrate its continued focus on ending horse racing (along with other campaigns), and
ongoing celebration of the disruption of sporting events. In particular:
The “ CAMPAIGNS ” section of AR’s website contains reference to four campaigns , 16
17.1
further to a separate page entitled “ Our history ” and a separate page entitled
“Campaigns we support” . One of the four campaigns is entitled “ Taking animal rights
to trial ” , and the first section on the relevant page falls under the heading “ HORSE RACING ” . 17 The page includes the following text (with original emphasis):
“Horse racing is an outdated practice that is ready to be resigned to
history .
In 2022 we disrupted the Epsom Derby, then followed it up with the Summer
of Animal Rising. Our planned disruption of the 2023 Grand National made
headlines, sparking a national conversation about the cruelty of horse
racing. The race was delayed, and 100+ arrests resulted in 45 people being
charged with public nuisance for their essential roles in calling on an end to
horse racing.
It didn't end there - we disrupted the Scottish Grand National, followed by
delaying the races at Doncaster, and then taking fight for horses to the
Epsom Derby, again, in June. Whilst brave supporters delayed the race
inside, a celebration took place outside the venue - showing an alternative to
the cruel sport.”
17.2
The page includes a slideshow of several pictures of protesters at horse racing
events, climbing or preparing to climb over fences, being arrested or apprehended by
police, and in particular, of Mr Newman being chased by security personnel on the Race Track at the Epsom Derby in 2023. 18
17.3
Under the text set out above, the website includes a click-through link with the text
“ Support ”, which leads to a page allowing visitors to make donations to “ SUPPORT
15 Page 60 of CB1 16 Pages 61 of CB1 17 Pages 62 of CB1 18 Pages 64 – 73 of CB1
6
Docusign Envelope ID: ABA671A3-E271-4EC4-AB06-1088FEC37456
PEOPLE STANDING UP FOR HORSES IN COURT ” . This page includes the following text: 19
“In 2023, we delayed the start of the Grand National and created a national
conversation about the cruelty of horse racing. Now, 45 people have been
charged with public nuisance. This is a huge opportunity to put horse
racing on trial before a jury. The court cases will start in September - in the
meantime, we urgently need your support to help us cover the costs of
transport, lawyers and building a legal defence that will make history for
animals . ”
17.4
This page allows supporters to make one-off or monthly payments, and records that
numerous and frequent payments were made since the page was published on 8
November 2024 until at least 22 June 2025.
17.5
Also under the page entitled “ Taking animal rights to trial ”, AR trumpets “ the disruption
of the English Greyhound Derby ” in 2023, and the group’s actions to “ free ” beagle dogs from a breeding facility in December 2022. 20
Under the page entitled, “ Our History ” , 21 AR further celebrates what it calls the “ 2023
17.6
Summer of Animal Rising ” , with the following text:
“ In the Spring of 2023 we launched Animal Rising with our boldest action yet:
more than 100 people aiming to halt the Grand National, the UK's largest
horse racing event.
Our intervention achieved 9 front-pages and hours of broadcast air-time, all
shining a spotlight on our broken relationship with animals and nature.
But we weren't done there, as we disrupted three more horse racing events,
occupied an intensive dairy farm, rescued three sheep from the King's land,
demonstrated outside half of the UK's remaining greyhound racetracks and
dropped a banner at the Greyhound Derby Final.”
18. AR has also posted a number of press releases on its website since the five-year Injunction
was ordered in July 2024, calling for an end to horse racing, and for protest action to
achieve this aim. These are summarised below, beginning with the most recent:
A press release posted on AR’s website on 2 May 2025 22 refers to deaths of horses
18.1
over the course of certain racing events, and includes the following statement by AR
campaigner, Claudia Penna Rojas:
19 Pages 74 - 79 of CB1 20 Pages 62 - 63 of CB1 21 Pages 80 - 83 of CB1
7
Docusign Envelope ID: ABA671A3-E271-4EC4-AB06-1088FEC37456
“2025 has been a terrible year for horse racing. The shocking deaths at this
year’s Grand National and Scottish Grand National laid bare the brutal reality
of the sport to the viewing public. Week after week, horses are pushed to
their limits and lose their lives on racetracks, and more people are waking up
to the cruelty behind the spectacle. This cruelty is exactly why campaigners
feel compelled to take peaceful action against industry- sponsored suffering.”
A press release on AR’s website dated 4 April 2025 23 refers to the ongoing criminal
18.2
proceedings against ten individuals who were arrested at the Epsom Racecourse on 3
June 2023. The press release describes these individuals as having been arrested
“ while bringing attention to cruelty and suffering in the horse racing industry, but
before they stepped foot on the race track, ” and stated that their actions “ helped shine
the spotlight onto our broken relationship with other animals and the natural world .” A
comment from one of the individuals charged is included as follows:
“This weekend brings yet another episode of televised cruelty in the form of
the Grand National, even though the British public are moving away from
cruel and harmful industries like horse racing. As the truth about the
breaking-in, whipping, injuries, and deaths that happen comes to light we are
seeing a drop in attendance at these events.
How many horses have to die, like Willy De Houelle just yesterday, before
we truly embrace what it means to be a nation of animal lovers? We must
work together to create a world where the animals currently trapped in horse
racing, greyhound racing, and other bloodsports can instead live free and
happy lives.”
A press release posted on AR’s website on 17 December 2024 24 notes that charges of
18.3
public nuisance and criminal damage against an individual who was due to stand trial
in September 2025 for her actions seeking to disrupt the Grand National in 2023, were
dropped due to lack of evidence. The press release included a statement from the
individual concerned, Megan Thornbury, as follows:
“I have watched horses die at the Grand National since I was a child seeing
the race on TV. It’s barbaric that we still allow this to happen year after year,
not to mention the thousands of horses dying over the years at other races
around the country. To me, the Grand National is a national disgrace. We
took a stand against the Grand National that day to show the industry that
we won’t stay silent about the suffering it causes. It’s time horse racing was
consigned to the history books.”
22 Pages 84 - 85 of CB1 23 Pages 86 - 87 of CB1 24 Pages 88 - 89 of CB1
8
Docusign Envelope ID: ABA671A3-E271-4EC4-AB06-1088FEC37456
Similarly, a press release posted on AR’s website dated 6 November 2024, 25 refers to
18.4
the arrests of 118 people at the Grand National in 2023 for their actions which delayed
the race for 15 minutes. It is noted that 9 of 18 of those charged pleaded not guilty. A
statement from AR spokesperson, Orla Coghlan, set out as follows:
“ While horses continue to suffer in British racing, we will be calling for an end
to this abhorrent “sport.” The protests at the Grand National hit a nerve and
continue to impact the industry to this day. The sheer level of support that
we’ve had shows this message has resonated with the public - nobody
wants to see horses suffer and die. We need to see an immediate end to this
dying industry.”
A press release on AR’s website dated 23 September 2024, 26 referenced the charges
18.5
having been dropped for “ six Animal Rising Supporters that disrupted the Epsom
Derby in 2022 ” as a success for the group. The press release referred to Mr Newman
“ successfully ” running onto the track during the 2023 Derby, and celebrated the
actions of the female protesters who acted in 2022, likening their actions to those of
Emily Davison, who “ ran out onto the tracks at the 1913 Derby to advocate for equal
voting rights .” The press release specifically referenced the five -year Injunction
ordered in respect of the Epsom Racecourse, “making disrupting races punishable by
imprisonment, fines, and seizure of assets, ” and directly afterwards, reproduced a
statement from Ms Rojas (one of those charged for her actions in 2022, lauded here
as the “ the Epsom Six ”) stating:
“The Jockey Club is aware of the cruel and unnecessary realities of horse
racing, and is doing everything it can to protect a dying industry. We proudly
stand by our actions; these charges being dropped is another step towards
the end of racing in Britain, and a kinder future for all life.”
19. AR has also continued to use its social media channels to call for an end to horseracing,
including by celebrating the actions of protesters, as summarised below. I note that the
group’s following on social media has only increased since Truesdale 1 was filed for the
purpose of the Interim Injunction application, which noted at paragraph 10 that the group
then had 65,500 followers on Instagram, and 23,700 on Twitter. Presently, the group has 73,000 followers on Instagram and 27,600 followers on X (formerly known as Twitter). 27 28
20. On 7 April 2025, AR posted an interview with Ms Rojas on BCB Radio, seemingly from 4 April 2025, on its YouTube page: 29
25 Pages 90 - 91 of CB1 26 Pages 92 - 93 of CB1
27 Pages 94 of CB1 28 Pages 95 of CB1 29 Pages 96 of CB1
9
Docusign Envelope ID: ABA671A3-E271-4EC4-AB06-1088FEC37456
20.1
Ms Rojas referred to horseracing as “ televised cruelty for the sake of profit ”, and called
for the need to “ stop racing [horses] to the death .” When asked to comment on AR’s
support for “ peaceful protest ”, Ms Rojas referred in particular to the protests at the
Grant National in 2023. In this context, she stated that AR “ believe that protest is a key
part of democracy, it always has been…. A lot of people saw the protest that we had
in 2023 where we were there at Aintree with the attempt to try and stop the race to
protect these animals and to call attention to these huge issues that are going on…we
need to be having a national conversation …”
20.2
In light of these comments, I understand the statements on AR’s website (noted at
paragraph 18.1 above) that people feel compelled to engage in “ peaceful protest ”, to
include disruptive protest and trespass, such as those carried out at the Grand
National in 2023, and at the Epsom Derby in 2022 and 2023.
20.3
Ms Rojas also stated in the radio interview that: “ People are turning their backs on the
industry. We’ve seen in Cheltenham this year, they had the lowest recorded crowd
since 1993, so time is ticking on this industry, and the faster we can make that
transition happen the safer these animals will be. ”
20.4
The video was captioned by AR as follows: “Supporters of Animal Rising attempted to
stop the horses from being forced to race in the 2023 Grand National, causing a 15
minute delay. Public Nuisance trials are scheduled for later this year after over 100
arrests were made at Aintree that day .” AR then includes a link to its website, seeking donations. 30
21. AR has also posted frequently on its X (formerly Twitter) feed during the course of this year,
calling for an end to horseracing, and celebrating the actions of those who disrupted the
races in recent years:
A post, dated 13 May 2025, 31 states:
21.1
“ While we fully support road safety awareness around horses, the biggest
killer of horses in Britain isn’t traffic, it’s racing.
214 horses died on UK racecourses in 2024 - nearly 4x more than on roads.
And it’s broadcast on mainstream TV throughout the year. #BanHorseRacing
#GrandNational. ”
A thread, dated 3 May 2025, 32 states as follows, and includes a link to AR’s website ,
21.2
seeking donations:
30 Pages 97 - 98 of CB1 31 Pages 99 of CB1
10
Docusign Envelope ID: ABA671A3-E271-4EC4-AB06-1088FEC37456
“9 Animal Rising supporters were sentenced for their participation in 2023's
disruption of the Grand National, calling for a ban on the cruel "sport". They
were each handed 200+ hours of community service, alongside £133 in
court fees. #grandnational #bandthegrandnational.
Even though the public recognise that the Grand National’s time is up, and
horses continue to die year after year in the name of “sport”, the Crown
Prosecution Service still see it fit to pursue convictions and punishment for
those who try to protect these horses.
Donate to the trial support fund, and help defendants facing legal action
for taking a stand against cruelty.”
A post, dated 18 April 2025, 33 states as follows:
21.3
“The latest racing horse deaths, most recently at Cheltenham, reveal
“exercise - associated sudden death” is the racing industry’s new buzzword.
Whether these horses die of heart attacks, broken necks, or “undetected”
respiratory failure is irrelevant. A horse will die every other day on a British
track, and the racing industry is entirely to blame.”
A post, dated 12 April 2025, 34 states as follows:
21.4
“Today we saw the few horses who made it to the finish line at the Scottish
Grand National violently whipped, while multiple horses fell or pulled up
injured.
We cannot call ourselves a nation of animal lovers while turning a blind eye
to the violence of horse racing.
Over the last week, this industry has exposed its grim reality to the viewing
public. This cruelty won’t end until racing is halted for good.”
22. A post on AR’s Instagram , dated 9 November 2024, 35 referred to the “ Grand National: Horse
Protectors in Court ”, stating that 24 “ brave campaigners ” appeared in court and pleaded not
guilty to public nuisance. It referred to the delay of the Grand National in 2023 and stated,
“ This couldn’t have happened without the incredible people who took a stand against cruelty
on that day. ” The post further stated, “ The racing industry is still dealing with the fallout of
increased scrutiny since this action, and we know public opinion is on our side.”
32 Pages 100 of CB1 33 Pages 101 of CB1 34 Pages 102 of CB1 35 Pages 103 of CB1
11
Docusign Envelope ID: ABA671A3-E271-4EC4-AB06-1088FEC37456
23. Further to the abovementioned statements in respect of horseracing, AR continues to
champion other disruptive action. Indeed, it appears to me that disruption remains at the
core of AR’s ideology as a method to achieve media attention and further its agenda, as Mr
Truesdale noted had been the case in 2024 (Truesdale 2, paragraph 17). By way of
example , and further to the references noted above under the pages of AR’s website
entitled “ Taking animal rights to trial ” and “ Our history” :
23.1
Under the “ CAMPAIGNS ” section of AR’s website, AR includes a page entitled “ FREE
THE MBR BEAGLES. ” Here, AR celebrates its actions in 2022 by taking 18 beagle dogs from Marshall BioResources Acres, 36 a facility where I understand dogs are bred for the purpose of developing lifesaving therapies for humans - as well as for veterinary treatments for animals. 37 AR notes that a criminal trial in respect of the
actions of several of its supporters involved in the stunt would begin in December
2025, heralded by AR as “ the trial of the decade ”, which “ could not be more
important .”
A video post on AR’s X feed on 17 April 2025 38 showed AR supporters (including Mr
23.2
Kidby and Mr Newman) on their way to Court in connection with charges brought
against them for their taking animals from the facility in 2022. One individual states
that he considered he was not guilty of burglary, because he did not go into the facility
with the intention of committing burglary but the intention of rescuing the dogs. Mr
Kidby stated that despite his fears of being away from his unborn child if sent to
prison, ultimately, he was “ proud ” of his actions, and that “ rescuing those dogs was
one of the best things I have ever done in my life ” . Mr Newman stated that he found it
very difficult to imagine that the jury would find them guilty.
A press release posted on AR’s website on 1 April 2025, 39 stated that four AR
23.3
campaigners were found guilty in a trial of public nuisance, celebrating the
“ succession of nationwide actions taken by Animal Rising in September and October
2022, which saw dairy trucks immobilised, milk shortages on supermarket shelves,
milk pours at department stores and more.” Comments by Mr Newman included in the
press release, provided as follows:
“Those who took part in our peaceful campaign against dairy giants didn’t do
so lightly. They felt compelled to take action because of the environmental
destruction and animal suffering caused by this outdated, harmful system.”
36 Pages 63 of CB1 37 Pages 104 - 108 of CB1 38 Pages 109 of CB1 39 Pages 110 - 111 of CB1
12
Docusign Envelope ID: ABA671A3-E271-4EC4-AB06-1088FEC37456
Similarly, a press release on 19 February 2025, 40 in relation to the sentencing of AR
23.4
supporters involved in the abovementioned blockades at the Müller’s site in Droitwich,
celebrated the protesters having caused “ milk shortages across the nation ”.
Comments from one of those sentenced, Ben Pattison, stated: “ It’s imperative that we
do everything we can to reverse the effects of the climate crisis. ”
24. Considering the frequency and vehemency of the statements on AR’s website and social
media channels calling for an end to horseracing, and the repeated celebration and
drumming up of support for individuals who previously disrupted the races, I consider there
remains a significant threat that further individuals, whether formally affiliated with AR or not,
will be inspired to take direct action to disrupt the races, if not constrained by an injunction.
25. I note that the Claimant has not received any further communications from AR regarding its
intention to disrupt the races as were received in 2023 (as set out in Starkey 1, paragraphs
7 to 9). However, this was also the case in 2024, when the Final Injunction Order was
granted, and in that sense, there has been no material change. Moreover, I consider that
AR’s public statements set out above pose a real risk that lone protesters may be inspired to
take action to disrupt the races, without necessarily communicating their intentions to do so,
as part of, or through AR.
26. In particular, it is my understanding that AR continues to operate as a collection of persons
who share a common purpose, rather than a corporate entity with a particular hierarchical
structure (as noted in Truesdale 1, paragraph 10; Truesdale 2, paragraph 21; and Starkey 1,
paragraph 6). As shown by the actions of Mr Newman in 2023, the decision of just one
individual to disrupt the races is sufficient to place others in attendance in serious danger. I
consider AR’s statements above, lauding previous actions to disrupt the races as “ brave ”
and “ successful ” , to pose a significant risk, that individuals, acting alone or together, may
seek to disrupt the races again.
27. For completeness, I note that, as referenced at paragraph 19 of Truesdale 2, a
spokesperson for AR, Mr Nathan McGovern, made a statement to the press on 4 April 2024,
stating that AR would not target the Grand National in 2024 because the public had “ in large
part been convinced that they don’t want racing to be part of the fabric of British culture
going forward. ” The numerous statements set out above show that AR does not seriously
consider that its aims to end horseracing have been achieved. Certainly, to reinforce Mr
Truesdale’s remarks at paragraph 20 of his second witness statement, I do not consider that
AR’s actions have had anything close to the effect described by Mr McGovern. The 2025
Derby Festival remained well attended, albeit with spectator numbers down by about 6,000
on last year, which in my opinion was predominantly due to the poor forecasted weather and
the cost of living crisis. ITV viewing figures were 8% down for the weekend of the 2025
40 Pages 112 - 113 of CB1
13
Docusign Envelope ID: ABA671A3-E271-4EC4-AB06-1088FEC37456
Festival as compared to last year but 5% up for the Derby race itself. A record number of 41 broadcasters broadcast the Derby to 170 countries worldwide 41 . Certainly, there is nothing
to suggest that any change in attendance or viewing figures has anything to do with AR’s
actions. In short, horse racing remains a highly popular and well-attended sport, across
many demographics and socioeconomic groups.
28. Surrey Police have informed us that there were four arrests made on the day of the 2025
Derby but these that these were related to ‘drunk and disorderly’ offences, rather than in
relation to protest action.
Wider protest action
29. Further to the abovementioned actions of AR, Mr Truesdale set out in 2024 that there was
“ a clear recent history of activist organisations targeting high profile sporting events to seek
to attract media attention and further their agenda through disruptive activities ” ( Truesdale 2,
paragraph 28; see also, Diaz-Rainey 2, paragraph 16), and I believe that this remains the
case.
30. Environmental activist group, Just Stop Oil (“ JSO ”), disrupted a number of sporting events in
2023, as detailed at paragraph 26 of Truesdale 2. On 27 March 2025, JSO issued a press
release stating that it was “ hanging up the hi vis ”, indicating it would halt its street
campaigns, purportedly because it had won on its “ initial demand” that the government end new oil and gas licences. 42 However, JSO supporters told the media: “ The high-vis might be going away … but we aren't ." 43 Indeed, at the time of writing this witness statement, the
homepage of JSO’s website, states “ Just Getting Started … Just Stop Oil may have won our
demand, but revolutionary change is needed now more than ever ,” with the rallying cry, “ See you on the streets .” 44 Further, under the heading, “ About Us ” , on the homepage of JSO’s website , the group states in no uncertain terms : “ A new revolutionary direct action campaign is coming. Help us build what’s next. ” 45
31. Furthermore, Youth Demand (“ YD ”), a political and environmental youth activist organisation
affiliated with JSO, 46 was established in 2024. 47 On 27 April 2025, YD affiliates jumped over
the barriers during the London Marathon on Tower Bridge, and into the path of the men’s elite race, throwing red powder paint across the road. 48 YD’s website calls on people to “ Help us grow the resistance ”, and to attend “ Nonviolence Training ” events. 49
41 Pages 114 – 116 of CB1 42 Pages 117 - 121 of CB1 43 Pages 122 - 131 of CB1
44 Page 132 of CB1 45 Page 137 of CB1
46 Pages 139 - 142 of CB1 47 Pages 143 - 152 of CB1 48 Pages 153 - 162 of CB1 49 Pages 163 - 167 of CB1
14
Docusign Envelope ID: ABA671A3-E271-4EC4-AB06-1088FEC37456
32. The Claimant has not received any direct indication from JSO or YD that they intend to
disrupt horseracing. However, in light of JSO’s public statement regarding a new direct
action campaign, coming soon, and YD’s recent establishment, targeting sporting events, I
believe there remains a very real and immediate threat to the safe and smooth operation of
the races hosted at the Epsom Racecourse. Indeed, the large audiences which watch the
Epsom Derby at the Racecourse and across broadcast and online platforms in the UK and
worldwide, make it a platform ripe for any disruptive protest group seeking to garner media
attention.
The Impact of Trespass and Disruption
33. As summarised below, including by reference to earlier evidence given in these
proceedings, the disruptive actions of protesters at the Epsom Racecourse have significant
and wide-ranging deleterious effects on the following groups.
The Horses and the Jockeys
34. I refer the Court to the first witness statement of Simon Knapp, the Claimant’s Senior
Veterinary Officer for London Region Races, for a detailed assessment of the impact of
disruptive action on the horses and jockeys. As detailed in paragraph 15, Mr Knapp
concludes that any disruption to racing events presents “ significant and serious risks to everyone involved, particularly the horses ’ safety and wellbeing ” . 50
35. In particular, he notes that the young colts raced in the Derby are “ akin to hormonal
adolescents ”, and in addition to weighing around 500kg, are “ excitable ”, “ unpredictable ” and
“ difficult to control ”, particularly if there is any delay or disruption to their routine ahead of
and at the start of a race, and particularly if injured (Knapp 1, paragraphs 8 to 10). Mr Knapp
also notes that delays and disruption can cause excessive sweating in horses, predisposing
them to injury and/or anxiety (paragraph 12), and sets out that disruptions to, and
distractions during races, pose serious risks to jockeys (paragraph 13).
36. I am informed by Jim Allen, Epsom General Manager for the Claimant, that he has spoken
with Mr Knapp, who remains in his role and has confirmed that the information contained
within his statement remains correct and there are no material updates.
The Protestors, police and security staff, and the public
37. Protesters at race meetings put themselves, police and security personnel, and the public,
at significant risk. As set out in the affidavit of Mr Truesdale at paragraph 57.2, it took the
actions of at least three police officers and three stewards to remove Mr Newman from the
Race Track in 2023. If any of them had suffered an injury or if they had not been able to
apprehend him promptly, then there was a real chance that people would have been on the
50 Pages 949 of the Evidence Bundle
15
Docusign Envelope ID: ABA671A3-E271-4EC4-AB06-1088FEC37456
course as the horses approached them, which could have led to loss of life. I refer also to
the statement of PC Hodgkins, who apprehended Mr Newman, who says that he was in
genuine fear for his safety and was scared he was going to be seriously injured. PC Stevens
also stated she was concerned for the safety of individuals who were dealing with Mr
Newman, due to the high-risk situation that he had created.
38. Should further people (for example, members of the public) enter the Race Track, either to
assist the stewards and the police, or to further the protest, then the danger to life would
only increase. Moreover , delayed and cancelled races, and possible conflicts between
protesters and the public, create increased risks relating to crowd-control, hostilities and
anti-social behaviour.
Additional Event Costs and Organisation
39. As a result of the threats of trespass and disruption, and the acts of the Ninth Defendant at
the 2023 Derby, the Claimant has had to divert management time away from the normal
running of its business at significant cost and detriment to the Claimant.
40. Due to the remaining threat of disruption, the additional security measures deployed in 2023
were again required at the 2024 and 2025 Epsom Festivals, at further significant cost to the
Claimant. The costs of the additional security measures at the 2023 Grand National and the
2023 Derby, and additional burden, are detailed in Truesdale 1, paragraphs 57 to 59 and
61. In particular, we have a ‘silver control’ tactical command in place on the weekend in
order to manage operations and any disruption effectively. This is a temporary compound
on the racecourse at Tattenham corner which contains CCTV of the Racecourse. Surrey
Police and other emergency staff are housed in this compound for the duration of the Derby
Festival so that they can monitor and manage any disruption or issues that may arise. This
is only in place for the Derby Festival. This was in place prior to the 2023 Derby Festival and
it remained in place for the 2025 Derby Festival.
41. As noted at paragraph 60 of Truesdale 1, Surrey Police indicated its support for the interim
injunction application, and the Claimant was in constant dialogue with Surrey Police
surrounding the 2023 Derby Festival. The Claimant remains in constant dialogue with
Surrey Police regarding the Derby Festivals and Surrey Police continued to monitor the
threat of any disruptive protest activity in the lead up to the 2025 Derby Festival.
Wider Impact on the Claimant’s Business and the sport
42. Disruptive protests have a wide- ranging and serious impact on the Claimant’s business and
legitimate commercial interests, and the sport in general. For example, the commercial
success and longevity of the Claimant, and horse racing more widely, directly depends on
revenue from sponsors, audiences and broadcast partners and all commercial activity.
Disruption to the races, and the broadcast schedule, seriously threaten this. Moreover,
16
Docusign Envelope ID: ABA671A3-E271-4EC4-AB06-1088FEC37456
disruption to events has the potential to cause significant reputational harm to the Claimant
and the sport. Approximately 85,000 people are directly and indirectly employed in horse
racing in Britain, and the industry contributes approximately £4.1 billion to the economy in
the United Kingdom. Moreover, horseracing has remained a much-loved sport through the
generations, and disruptive protests significantly interfere with the public’s legitimate
enjoyment of the same.
Alternatives to an injunction
Non-disruptive protest
43. A non-disruptive protest was held at Aintree Racecourse at the Randox Grand National
meeting on 5 April 2025. This occurs almost every year, within an area designated for it by
the Claimant in conjunction with Merseyside Police. Historically, this has been opposite the
main entrance to the racecourse (Grand National Avenue) and is positioned at the entrance
to the car park of Aintree Station.
44. Similarly, a ‘peaceful protest’ area was available to those wishing to protest at the Epsom
Derby in 2025. This area is located on the roadside immediately over the road from the
Racecourse Pavillion/Office Building. The Claimant received no prior requests to utilise this
designated area; however, it was used by some protestors affiliated with a further campaign
group, Animal Aid, on the day of the Derby.
45. I am informed by Mr Allen that five protestors affiliated with Animal Aid stood on the main
road outside the Racecourse, holding up pictures purporting to show horses with broken
legs. As far as I know, we had no advance notice of their presence. Three of the five
protestors initially stood in the designated area. Those three protesters then joined the other
two protesters on the pavement immediately outside the Racecourse Pavillion/Office
Building. Mr Allen informs me that the two protestors initially positioned on the pavement
refused to move to the designated protest area when asked by staff of the Claimant.
46. I note that a similar area was provided to protesters in 2023, but this was not considered a
realistic alternative for those intent on disrupting the race.
Public order offences
47. As far as I am aware, there has been no material change to primary legislation in respect of
the public order offences in force since the Final Injunction Order was granted in July 2024.
In my view, the statements on AR’s website and social media set out above, show that the
criminal charges brought and sentences given in respect of action taken in 2022 and 2023,
plainly are not a sufficient deterrent.
17
Docusign Envelope ID: ABA671A3-E271-4EC4-AB06-1088FEC37456
48. On 3 June 2025, Surrey Police confirmed that a trial in respect of those charged for their
actions at the Epsom Derby in 2023 would not be heard until September 2028. In my view,
the criminal process does not provide a practical alternative to an injunction, which in the
case of Mr Newman, was enforced by way of committal proceedings within just three
months of his breach.
49. I am aware that Epsom and Ewell Borough Council adopted a Public Space Protection
Order (PSPO) for the borough on 3 June. This allows police officers to issue fixed penalty
notices of £100 for anyone who they have reason to believe has committed an offence
under the Order. The PSPO establishes that it is an offence for people in the borough to
carry out the following prohibited activities:
“ 5.1 In the Restricted Area a person commits an offence if without reasonable excuse
they continue to carry out activities which are prohibited namely;
5.1.1. Harassing or intimidating residents, businesses or members of the public.
5.1.2. Threatening any person with violence and / or being verbally abusive towards
any person.
5.1.3. Wearing a piece of clothing with the intent to obscure or hide their identity for
the purposes of committing crime and/or anti-social behaviour.
5.1.4. Acting, or inciting others to act, in an anti-social manner, that is to say a manner
that is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to any person.
5.1.5. Joining or remaining in a group of 2 or more people which is acting in a manner
that is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to any person.
5.1.6 Consumption of alcohol following a verbal warning by an authorised person to
stop. An authorised person includes a Police Constable, Police Community Support
Officer, a Council Officer, or any other person authorised by the Council.” 51
50. The Claimant did not receive advance notice of the PSPO. I understand, from discussing
with Mr Allen, who informed me of his discussions with Surrey Police, that the PSPO is
targeted at people being drunk and disorderly rather than protest activity; and that some
arrests were made but they were not protest related.
51. In any case, I understand that the maximum fine for such offences (other than that which
relates to the consumption of alcohol) is £1000. I do not consider this to be a sufficient
deterrent for potential protesters, even if they were to be fined under the Order (which, in
light of Mr Allen’s discussions with Surrey Police, seems highly unlikely) particularly in light
51 Pages 168 – 169 of CB1
18
Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32-33 Page 34-35 Page 36-37 Page 38-39 Page 40-41 Page 42-43 Page 44-45 Page 46-47 Page 48-49 Page 50 Page 51 Page 52 Page 53 Page 54 Page 55 Page 56 Page 57 Page 58 Page 59 Page 60 Page 61 Page 62 Page 63 Page 64 Page 65 Page 66 Page 67 Page 68 Page 69 Page 70 Page 71 Page 72 Page 73 Page 74 Page 75 Page 76 Page 77 Page 78 Page 79 Page 80 Page 81 Page 82 Page 83 Page 84 Page 85 Page 86 Page 87 Page 88 Page 89 Page 90 Page 91 Page 92 Page 93 Page 94 Page 95 Page 96 Page 97 Page 98 Page 99 Page 100 Page 101 Page 102 Page 103 Page 104 Page 105 Page 106 Page 107 Page 108 Page 109 Page 110 Page 111 Page 112 Page 113 Page 114 Page 115 Page 116 Page 117 Page 118 Page 119 Page 120 Page 121 Page 122 Page 123 Page 124 Page 125 Page 126 Page 127 Page 128 Page 129 Page 130 Page 131 Page 132 Page 133 Page 134 Page 135 Page 136 Page 137 Page 138 Page 139 Page 140 Page 141 Page 142 Page 143 Page 144 Page 145 Page 146 Page 147 Page 148 Page 149 Page 150 Page 151 Page 152 Page 153 Page 154 Page 155 Page 156 Page 157 Page 158 Page 159 Page 160 Page 161 Page 162 Page 163 Page 164 Page 165 Page 166 Page 167 Page 168 Page 169 Page 170 Page 171 Page 172 Page 173 Page 174 Page 175 Page 176 Page 177 Page 178 Page 179 Page 180 Page 181 Page 182 Page 183 Page 184 Page 185 Page 186 Page 187 Page 188 Page 189 Page 190 Page 191 Page 192 Page 193 Page 194 Page 195 Page 196 Page 197 Page 198 Page 199 Page 200 Page 201 Page 202 Page 203 Page 204 Page 205 Page 206 Page 207 Page 208 Page 209Made with FlippingBook Digital Proposal Creator