HS2 Ltd & SSfT v Persons Unknown & Ors
Approved Judgment:
(5) The cases in which infrastructure is prevented from being used or operated for any of its intended purposes include where its use or operation for any of those purposes is significantly delayed. (6) In this section “key national infrastructure” means— (a) road transport infrastructure, (b) rail infrastructure, (c) air transport infrastructure, (d) harbour infrastructure, (e) downstream oil infrastructure, (f) downstream gas infrastructure, (g)onshore oil and gas exploration and production infrastructure, (h) onshore electricity generation infrastructure, or (i) newspaper printing infrastructure. Section 8 makes further provision about these kinds of infrastructure.”
Submissions 37.
20 38. In response, D6 submitted that circumstances had changed since the granting and renewal of the routewide injunction. Firstly, the Government announcement took away the very sub strata for the injunction covering the purple land of phase 2A. It was submitted that the campaigners had “won”, that they had no continued interest in phase 2A and therefore the injunction should no longer cover it. No written evidence or submission was made that the injunction should not be renewed for the blue part of the track, phase 1, which is currently under construction, although an en-passant verbal attempt was so made in the hearing. Furthermore, D6 submitted that new criminal offences had been created in the Public Order Act, in sections 7 and 6, which meant 45 The Claimants submitted that the Act of 2021 (phase 2A) remains in force, despite the Government announcement on the 4th of October 2023 that construction would not go ahead on phase 2. In addition, the high speed rail link between Crewe and Manchester was covered by a bill that was still in the Parliamentary process. The second Claimant had acquired 60% of the phase 2A land and had not announced what it was going to do with it. The Claimants relied on the evidence from Mr Groves and Mr Dobson and asserted that the routewide injunction had reduced unlawful protests and reduced the wasted costs paid by the taxpayer from spending of around £100 million to spending of around £100,000. The Claimants accepted there had been no major direct action since the 17th of March 2023, there had only been isolated incidents, but they submitted this showed that the injunction was working not that it should be terminated. There were individual protests by urban explorers, drone flyers and some “freeman of the land” groups. It was submitted that the Claimants should not lose the protection of the injunction on the purple land just because the injunction had been effective, that would be self defeating.
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online