1RWE Npower Plc 2 John Patrick Rainford v 1 Rev. Malcolm Carrol 2 David Howarth 3 Mike Powell 4 Christopher Ward 5 Anthony Bailey 6 Dr.Peter Harbour
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Teare |
| Judgment Date | 27 April 2007 |
| Neutral Citation | [2007] EWHC 947 (QB) |
| Docket Number | Case No: HQ07X00505 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Date | 27 April 2007 |
[2007] EWHC 947 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN's BENCH DIVISION
Mr. Justice Teare
Case No: HQ07X00505
Tim Lawson-Cruttenden (Solicitor Advocate) for the Claimants
Stephanie Harrison (instructed by Liberty) for the 1 st,2 nd, 3 rd,4 th and 6 th Defendants
Hearing dates: 17 and 18 April 2007
The First Claimant generates electrical power in Oxfordshire at a coal fired power station. The ash has to be disposed of and the First Claimant has planning permission to dispose of it in eight former gravel pits in Radley. A number of people, who would prefer the land on which the gravel pits lie to remain as it is, are opposed to the First Claimant's plans to dispose of the ash.
On 14 February 2007 the Claimants obtained from Mr. Justice Calvert-Smith, upon a without notice application, an injunction restraining the Defendants from harassing the Claimants and from trespassing upon the First Claimant's land. The Claimants now seek a continuation of that order until trial.
Although the Defendants have so far been unable to obtain legal aid to fund their defence, Counsel, Ms. Stephanie Harrison, has been instructed on behalf of all Defendants save the 5 th Defendant by Liberty. She has indicated that the Defendants have been unable to advance an effective and full response to the application for an injunction but she was, nevertheless, able to make helpful and clear submissions in support of her submission that the injunction should not be continued and in the alternative modified. The 5 th Defendant has not appeared and is not represented. I am told that he may be ill.
The application has given rise to issues concerning the threat of harassment and trespass, the width of the activities to be restrained, the status of the First Defendant as a representative defendant, the description of those represented, the effect of CPR 19.6(4) and certain other detailed points on the form of the order.
The threat
The Claimants say that in late 2006/early 2007 a group of individuals, said to be the First to Fifth Defendants, occupied Sandles House which was on property at Radley Lakes owned by the First Claimant. The occupation was intended to frustrate the First Claimant's efforts to prepare the land for the receipt of ash. Following a court order the squatters were evicted on 6 February 2007. Media reports suggested that the squatters intended that the squat was but the first phase in their campaign against the First Claimant's plans. A “protest camp” was set up opposite the entrance to Sandles House, protestors trespassed upon the First Claimant's land, registration numbers of vehicles belonging to employees of the First Claimant's employees were taken down, employees were photographed and a car was driven at two employees.
The First Claimant had to fell a large a number of trees by 1 March 2007 and feared that its operations would be obstructed. For that reason an injunction was sought and granted on 14 February 2007. Since then photographs which were shown to me illustrate that much tree-felling has been done.
Notwithstanding that the immediate purpose of the injunction appears to have been served, at least to some significant extent, the Claimants continue to fear further harassment and trespass. In support of this fear I was referred to a number of documents found on the internet. They come from the period both before and after the eviction of trespassers from Sandles House.
Thus, before the eviction from Sandles House occurred a group in possession of Sandles House “opposed to the destruction of Radley Lakes by infilling them with pulverised ash from N powers coal burning Didcot power station” announced their intention to resist eviction and called on “people to turn up who are prepared to defend our stake in the lakes future”. The group said they were in need of a wide variety of equipment including “lock on equipment” and “welding equipment”. Donations were requested to be sent to RLLF (which the Claimants suggested stood for Radley Lakes Legal Fund). This information was found on a web site called “Earth First! … Direct action for people and planets”.
Another entry on the web site called for support and equipment including wire mesh, tools and wrenches, climbing caribineers, lock-ons and chains. A phone number was given which I was told was that of the Second Defendant. (This appears to be correct because the same number (less one digit) is listed on the Greenpeace web site giving the number as that of “Dave Howarth”.)
When an order was made for the possession of Sandles House a message on another web site (Indymedia) reported the order but sent “a call out to anyone to come down and bring cake and lock on tubes”. Again, the Second Defendant's phone number was given. Counsel for the Claimants described the language of this message, with justification, as defiant.
A news web site, “This is Oxfordshire”, reported that the squatters were “professional protestors with experience of campaigns like the Newbury Bypass”. It was reported that a tunnel and chamber had been dug in the basement of the house and other hindrances were being created. It was reported that one of the protestors' biggest weapons was “the lock-on obstruction where a protestor embeds their arm locked in a metal tube into a barrel full of cement and other materials.”
After the eviction the Oxford Mail reported a squatter named Dave (said to be the Second Defendant) saying “We may have lost round one but we will re-group and consider our next course of action. We are not finished yet although we can't go back to the house …” The First Defendant who was described as the spokesman for the protestors is reported to have said “Whatever happens over the next few days we will continue to fight npower. Our campaign is planned in phases and this is just the first of them”. The Sixth Defendant was reported as saying “the fight is not over by a long way.”
Since the grant of the injunction there have been two large scale demonstrations against the First Claimant's intended use of Radley Lakes on 14 February and 10 March 2007. The first involved about 200 protestors and the second up to 550. They appear to have been conducted lawfully and peacefully. Amongst those taking part in the second march were the Mayor of Abingdon wearing his mayoral chain.
It seems to me that having regard to the involvement in the protest of “professional” protesters with experience of other campaigns, the call for and use of equipment to make repossession of Sandles House difficult and the statements apparently made by the First, Second and Sixth Defendants that the fight will go on notwithstanding the eviction of the squatters the Claimants have reasonable ground to fear that unless restrained some protestors will continue to trespass on the First Claimant's land and harass employees of the First Claimant and its contractors. It does not seem to me that this threat has ceased to exist simply because the tree felling required by 1 March has been accomplished or because there have been only peaceful and lawful protests since the injunction was ordered.
The evidence adduced by the Claimants is sufficient to justify injunctive relief against the First Defendant (who there is reason to believe holds himself as a spokesperson for those who squatted in Sandles House), the Second Defendant (who there is reason to believe had a leading role in the squat), the Third and Fourth Defendants (who there is reason to believe took part in the squat), the Fifth Defendant (who there is reason to believe took part in the squat and after the eviction set up a tent outside the First Claimant's access to one of the lakes thereby impeding the entry and exit of vehicles from the site) and the Sixth Defendant (who there is reason to believe drove his car at two employees of the First Claimant's contractors and photographed employees in circumstances where it was feared that the photographs would be published enabling other protestors to identify and harass them.)
For these reasons I consider it right in principle that the injunctive relief against harassment and trespass should continue.
The width of the restrained activities
It is however necessary to consider the precise wording of that relief to ensure that it is not too wide or disproportionate. It is particularly important to ensure that the right of peaceful protest is not impeded to a disproportionate extent.
Following the argument and discussion between the parties there is now much common ground as to the terms of the injunction. The represented Defendants were involved in this discussion upon the basis that I considered it right in principle that the injunction be continued.
The activities to be restrained are set out in paragraph 6 of the Order. The opening sentence of the paragraph contains a general restraint upon harassment which is then...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
AGC Chemicals Europe Ltd v Stop Huntington Animal Cruelty
...considered in other cases. Subsequently, Mr Lawson-Cruttenden sent me 2 further cases, RWE NPower & another v Malcolm Carroll & others [2007] EWHC 947 (QB) and SmithKline Beecham PLC v Greg Avery [2007] EWHC 948 (QB), both cases are decisions of Teare J in which he reached similar conclusio......
-
AGC Chemicals Europe Ltd v Stop Huntington Animal Cruelty
...considered in other cases. Subsequently, Mr Lawson-Cruttenden sent me 2 further cases, RWE NPower & another v Malcolm Carroll & others [2007] EWHC 947 (QB) and SmithKline Beecham PLC v Greg Avery [2007] EWHC 948 (QB), both cases are decisions of Teare J in which he reached similar conclusio......
-
R (Boyle) v Haverhill Pubwatch
...the First Claimant's intended use of Sandles House and Radley Lakes by harassment, trespass and any other unlawful means (and others) [2007] EWHC 947 (QB) and Heathrow Airport Ltd (for and on behalf of itself, the contractors, sub-contractors, suppliers and service providers and the lessees......