66. I consider that any defence assertion that the final injunction amounts to a breach of the Defendants’ rights under Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights would be bound to fail. Trespass on the Claimants’ 8 sites and criminal damage thereon is not justified by those Articles and they are irrelevant to those pleaded causes. As for private nuisance the same reasoning applies. The Articles would only be relevant to the public nuisance on the highways. The Claimants accept that those rights would be engaged on public highways. However, the injunction is prescribed by law in that it is granted by the Court. It is granted with a legitimate aim, namely to protect the Claimant’s civil rights to property and access thereto, to avoid criminal damage, to avoid serious health and safety dangers, to protect the right to life of the Claimants’ staff and invitees should a serious accidents occur and to enable the emergency services by enabling to access the 8 Sites. There is also a wider interest in avoiding the disruption to emergency services, schools, transport and national services from disruption in fuel supplies. In my judgment there are no less restrictive means available to achieve the aim of protecting the Claimants’ civil rights and property than the terms of the final injunction. The Defendants have demonstrated that they are committed to continuing to carry out their unlawful behaviour. In my judgment an injunction in the terms sought strikes a fair balance. In particular, the Defendants’ actions in seeking to compel rather than persuade the Government to act in a certain way (by attacking the Claimants 8 Sites), are not at the core of their Article 10 and 11 rights, see Attorney General's Reference (No 1 of 2022) [2023] KB 37, at para 86. I take into account that direct action is not being carried out on the highway because the highway is in some way important or related to the protest. It is a means by which the Defendants can inflict significant disruption, see National Highways Ltd v Persons Unknown [2021] EWHC 3081 (KB), at para 40(4)(a) per Lavender J and Ineos v Persons Unknown [2017] EWHC 2945 (Ch), at para.114 per Morgan J. I take into account that the Defendants will still be able to protest and make their points in other lawful ways after the final injunction is granted, see Shell v Persons Unknown [2022] EWHC 1215, at para. 59 per Johnson J. I take into account that the impact on the rights of others of the Defendants’ direct action, for instance at Kingsbury, is substantial for the reasons set out above. As well as being a public nuisance, the acts sought to be restrained are also offences contrary to s.137 of the Highways Act 1980 (obstruction of the highway), s.1 of the Public Order Act 2023 (locking-on) and s.7 of the Public Order Act 2023 (interference with use or operation of key national infrastructure). In these circumstances I do not consider that the Defendants have any realistic prospect of success on their potential defences.
Balance of convenience – compelling justification
35 67. In my judgment the balance of convenience and justice weigh in favour of granting the final injunction. The balance tips further in the Claimants’ favour because I consider that there are compelling justifications for the injunction against the named Defendants and the PUs to protect the Claimants’ 8 Sites d the nearby public from the threatened torts, all of which are at places which are part of the National Infrastructure. In 96
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online