potential disruptors has been mentioned. Animal Rising was behind the very recent attempts to disrupt the Grand National meeting at Aintree at which, as a matter of clear public knowledge, protesters scaled fences with barbed wire or razor wire on top and invaded the actual race course, the racetrack itself. And there is evidence that the Association has also sought to disrupt other race meetings, including one taking place at Ayr. 16. The Animal Rising website proclaims an aim to have 1,000 protesters at the Derby meeting. In my view, there is absolutely no doubt there has been an incitement of persons to disrupt the Derby race meeting and a very serious risk that a significant number of members of the Association or those associated with them or sharing their views will attend for that purpose. 17. The disruption may or may not involve sitting down on the course. It may or may not involve locking on or gluing. The Claimant has no way of knowing what is actually planned, but there is no doubt in my mind that there is a real risk of that. 18. The Association has been offered an area within the racecourse for peaceful protest, but has declined that offer. The dangers of disruption hardly need spelling out. Ss well as disrupting the event itself and causing delays, there is a fear that the protesters will invade areas where horses actually are or will be with danger to equine and human life and limb. 19. As I have already pointed out, and as is clearly vouched in the evidence, the horses that participate in the Derby are young horses who are inexperienced and have been likened by a vet to adolescents on testosterone..They are twitchy, they are nervous, and they will be hyped up before the event. If there are attempts to interfere with them it is unknown how some or all of them will react. They may react by bolting, by backing into people, by throwing jockeys, and/or by somehow damaging themselves. There is, in my view, no doubt that that is a very serious risk. 20. I have received evidence from a vet as to all these matters and as to the serious risk of danger to the horses if disruption of the type which is feared takes place, it might of course be a little ironic that those behind Animal Rising will be prepared to risk such things, and they may have an answer to the point, but there is no doubt that there is risk to the horses. There is also risk to the life and limb of jockeys, which is obvious. There is also a risk to life and limb of members of the public who may be affected by horses over whom there is less than full control. I accept all that evidence. 21. I also accept that there is potential financial risk if the meeting is disrupted and there are delays in the race where races are postponed. The Derby race meeting is attended by tens of thousands of people and it is broadcast to millions and its reputation will hardly be enhanced if there is unjustified disruption by protesters or anyone else. 22. The Claimants seek injunctive relief to prevent that. I should describe it because it is necessary to do so in order to show that it is targeted and that the relief sought is proportionate and in order to explain the limits of the relief which is sought. The Claimant does not claim some overall single form of blanket injunction, such as restraining protesters from invading the course or anything like that. The relief sought is targeted at specific areas of the racecourse area. 23. I will read the terms of the injunction sought in full so that its scope can be appreciated:
Page 4 of 12
6
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online