“47. The respondent was motivated by his concerns and fears relating to the consequences of global warming and his disagreement with the decision of the Supreme Court. However, this does not begin to justify his conduct. There is no principle which justifies treating the conscientious motives of a protester as a licence to flout court orders with impunity. It was, moreover, a futile gesture as the judgment would in any event have been available some 22 hours later for scrutiny and criticism by the media and the public. However, we do accept that greater clemency is normally required to be shown in cases of civil disobedience than in other cases; see Cuadrilla Bowland Ltd v Persons Unknown [2020] EWCA Civ 9; [2020] 4 WLR 29 and Cuciurean v Secretary of State for Transport [2021] EWCA Civ 357.”
22. I turn to the application of these principles.
23. First, the breach of the injunction was serious and the defendant has a high degree of culpability. Breach of any court order undermines the administration of justice, the rule of law and the authority of the court. The order of the court in this case was made to protect the claimant against exactly this kind of disruption. The Derby Festival is a major sporting event attended by many thousands and watched by millions. The defendant knew of the terms of the injunction and that it prevented him from entering the racetrack. He deliberately flouted that order. His actions were planned in advance. He said publicly in the radio interview on 2 June that he intended to ignore the order and, indeed, encouraged others to take part. He was not acting under pressure or compulsion, and his actions were his own. Orders of the court must be obeyed by everyone and they are not optional. 24. Secondly, on the other hand, I find that the defendant was motivated by conscientious objectives. It is not for the court to rule on the merits of the defendant's views concerning animal welfare. The case law shows that conscientious motivation is not an excuse and that orders of the court must be complied with and are not optional. But the cases also show that a conscientious protest may serve to lessen the culpability of the defendant and the severity of the sentence. 25. Thirdly, turning to harm, the defendant says that he did not intend to cause any harm. He says that he did not set out to create a dangerous situation for animal or human participants in the race and that his intention had been to delay the start of the race, and he had not intended to enter the track once the race had started. The defendant was not cross-examined about this evidence, and I accept it. In the event, the harm caused by the defendant was comparatively limited. The claimant has agreed that it does not allege that any horse or jockey's welfare was in fact compromised by the defendant's actions during the running of the race. On the other hand, the defendant accepts that he created a frightening situation for those who had to enter the track to remove him and that he caused stress to a number of others. The parties are also agreed that the horses were some two minutes away from the respondent when he entered the track
8
22
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online