Company, being rights to which the Claimant now justifiably lays claim. Because of the interaction of those rights, this case has more subtleties in considering rights and remedies than might otherwise be thought to be the case, and I will come back to them. 9. There is also a set of bylaws made by the Epsom and Walton Downs Conservators, a body whose existence is provided for by the 1984 Act. Those bylaws contain restrictions on what the public can and cannot do on Epsom Downs and they include a restriction on causing a nuisance. Mr Alan Maclean KC, who appears for the Company, said that he did not rely on anything in those bylaws as such as giving him rights on which he can rely for present purposes, though as will be apparent some of the relief is framed in terms of contravention of them. 10. Because of the odd physical nature of and title to Epsom Downs, the racecourse is vulnerable to greater degrees of invasion than might otherwise be the case. The whole area of the racecourse is not securely fenced. There are rails along the edge of the racetrack to delineate it, but there is no clearly delineated part or delineated area on the ground which necessarily secures the area of the racecourse from incursion by members of the public. 11. The public have access to the area which is loosely enclosed by the racetrack itself, but under the Act, only across certain crossing points, Nonetheless, those crossing points are normally open and provide a route, in theory, onto the racetrack, but as I will come to, the public or not allowed on to that. Suffice it to say, for present purposes, the absence of a clearly delineated, fenced area around the area of the whole racecourse, means that the site is vulnerable to incursions by persons who are not supposed to be there, at least on race days. 12. Horses are therefore vulnerable to incursions on the racetrack itself. They are also vulnerable to distraction and potentially some form of frightening and/or attack as they move around the areas ancillary to the racetrack; that is to say, the areas from the stable to the parade ring and from the parade ring to the course, but those are not areas which are securely fenced off from members of the public. A persistent member of the public would and could have access to those areas if he or she wished to do so, even if they have been legitimately admitted by a ticket through one of the permitted public entrances. 13. There are times when the horses are making their way from the parade ring to the track when their passage is protected by men holding ropes, but that is, at that point, the only delineation of the horse area from the human area. There is therefore plenty of theoretical scope for protesters who wish to disrupt the meeting to have access to areas of the racecourse where that disruption can take place. 14. There is clear evidence of potential disruption to the Derby race meeting from members of Animal Rising. I have seen plenty of evidence of that and I am quite satisfied of that threat, and indeed, Mr Kidby and his associates are almost proud of their professed intention that the race meeting should be disrupted, although I should record that Mr Kidby professes in an email that he has not decided whether he himself will participate or not. 15. There have been announcements of an intention to disrupt on a website. The Daily Mail has carried an apparently justified story indicating that members of the association have proclaimed their clear intention to disrupt. The number of 1,000
Page 3 of 12
5
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online