Eli Lilly & Company Ltd & Others v Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty & Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR JUSTICE SPENCER |
| Judgment Date | 01 November 2011 |
| Neutral Citation | [2011] EWHC 3527 (QB) |
| Docket Number | Claim No: IHQ/11/0721 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Date | 01 November 2011 |
[2011] EWHC 3527 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand,
London WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice Spencerhis Honour Judge Hullhis Honour Judge Hullhis Honour Judge Hull
Claim No: IHQ/11/0721
MR T LAWSON-CRUTTENDEN (instructed by Lawson-Cruttenden &Co) appeared on behalf of the Claimant.
The Interested Party Debbie Vincent appeared in person.
Approved Judgment
Tuesday 1 November 2011
This is an application by the claimants for an interim injunction pursuant to sections 3 and 3(A) of the Prevention from Harassment Act 1997 (as amended by the Serious Organised Crime & Police Act 2005) to restrain unlawful conduct in connection with public protesting against the commercial activities of the claimant company.
The parties and the background.
The first claimant ("Eli Lilly") is a pharmaceutical company with premises at three sites in the United Kingdom: Erl Wood Manor, Windlesham in Surrey; Lilly House, Basingstoke in Hampshire; and Lilly Speke in Liverpool. The company is a subsidiary of a very large and well known American company, and there are other subsidiary companies in Europe and across the world. Eli Lilly has about 1,500 employees in England and Wales and 38,000 staff worldwide. Eli Lilly was for some years one of the targets of sustained and well-orchestrated protests by animal rights campaigners because of the contractual relationship the company was believed to have with Huntingdon Life Sciences ("HLS"). HLS is a company which is involved, under regulation, in clinical testing and experimentation on animals for the medical and pharmaceutical industries.
The second claimant is a director of Eli Lilly who represents the interests of all Eli Lilly's UK employees and workers. He has been permitted, by order of Lloyd Jones J on 12 October 2011, to remain anonymous in these proceedings.
The first defendant, Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty ("SHAC") is an unincorporated and loosely affiliated association, whose stated objective is the closure of the laboratories of HLS. As part of that objective, the campaign has consistently and relentlessly targeted commercial suppliers of HLS, with a view to forcing and frightening them into ceasing to do business with HLS or its suppliers. The seriousness and ferocity of the SHAC campaign over the years is well illustrated in the evidence before me in relation to many other cases of this kind which have come before judges sitting in the Queen's Bench Division in which injunctions have been granted in terms very similar to those of the order sought in this case.
By order of Lloyd Jones J dated 12 October 2011, Greg Avery and Debbie Vincent have been joined pursuant to CPR 19.6 to represent all members of SHAC and all protestors conducting activities against the claimant.
Greg Avery is a fervent and dedicated animal rights campaigner who has been involved since at least 1999 in a campaign to close down HLS. In January 2009 he was sentenced at Winchester Crown Court to a term of 9 years' imprisonment for conspiracy to commit blackmail arising from the SHAC campaign against HLS. Greg Avery is due very shortly to be released from that sentence. Indeed, I was told that it was likely to be this week.
Debbie Vincent has appeared before me at the hearing of this application, and has made helpful and constructive submissions. She has on occasions acted as a spokesperson for SHAC. For example, she spoke at a rally in Manchester on 21 April 2011 on behalf of SHAC to mark World Day for Animals in Labs, and she accepts that on that occasion she was speaking for SHAC. She appeared before the High Court on 7 July 2011 and on 4 and 5 October 2011 as an interested party in similar applications for injunctive relief brought against SHAC by two other claimants, Invesco UK Limited and Harlan Laboratories UK Limited, respectively. Miss Vincent does not wish to be joined as a representative party in these proceedings. Although that intimation of her wish would not necessarily preclude the court from joining her pursuant to CPR 19.6 if the court considered that the interests of justice demanded it, I accede to her request. I therefore set aside the order made by Lloyd Jones J to that extent. Miss Vincent will be referred to in the order in these proceedings only as an interested party, as she was in the orders in the other two sets of proceedings I have mentioned.
The second defendant, National Anti Vivisection Alliance ("NAVA"), holds itself out as an alliance of groups opposed to vivisection. NAVA has recently been made the subject of an injunction in similar terms to that now sought by Eli Lilly, which was granted by Singh J on 5 October 2011 in relation to a campaign against Harlan Laboratories UK Limited. By the same order of Lloyd Jones J dated 12 October 2011, Luke Steel was joined to represent members of NAVA and all protesters conducting activities against the claimant. Luke Steel has been held out as the chairman and spokesperson of NAVA. Indeed, he describes himself as "spokesperson" in correspondence there has been between him and Mr Lawson-Crittenden, the solicitor representing the claimants. He has not appeared at the hearing and has not replied to recent email correspondence inviting him to clarify his stance in relation to the current application.
The third defendant, Animal Liberation Front ("ALF"), is a long-established campaigning group which shares the objectives of the first two defendants. By the same order of Lloyd Jones J dated 12 October 2011, Robin Webb was joined pursuant to CPR 19.6 to represent the members of ALF and all protesters conducting activities against the complainant. Robin Webb has not attended this hearing, but in a letter dated 18 July 2011, in response to a letter before action from the claimant's solicitors, and in a further letter dated 24 October 2011, Mr Webb has indicated that he is willing to be bound personally by reasonable restrictions along the lines of past orders that have been granted in similar circumstances, as he puts it. He was not able to offer any such assurance on behalf of members, supporters and associates of the ALF. Mr Webb describes himself merely as the "press officer" for the ALF.
Mr Lawson-Crittenden, on behalf of Eli Lilly, also seeks an order against a fourth defendant described as "persons unknown". I shall return to that.
The basis of the claim for relief.
Eli Lilly seek an injunction until trial or further order to protect their premises at the three sites from trespass, and to protect from harassment their employees, their employees' families and any persons working at or visiting the premises. The order sought is in terms similar to orders made in other such cases in recent years which seek to balance the rights of protesters under articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights against the rights of Eli Lilly and their employees not to be subjected to unreasonable and unlawful harassment. The proposed order would restrain protesters from entering and trespassing on Eli Lilly's premises at the three sites. It would prevent protesters from assaulting, harassing, molesting or otherwise interfering with employees of Eli Lilly, their families, or anyone else working at or visiting the premises (defined in the order as "protected persons"). The order would prevent protesters photographing or videoing protected persons or their vehicles or homes. It would prevent protesters from making any abusive or threatening communication with protected persons or communicating with them at all at their homes. The order would restrict the location, nature and duration of protests at Eli Lilly's three sites. In short, it is proposed that the number of protesters at any one time should not exceed 20 persons. The maximum duration for a protest demonstration should not exceed three hours at a time, and should take place only once a week. The demonstrations would be permitted to take place only within "designated protest areas", clearly marked on plans annexed to the order. The order would prevent the use of loudhailers or other amplifying devices. The protesters would not be permitted to wear disguise preventing recognition. The police would have to be given 24 hours' notice of any protest. The terms of the proposed order are very similar to the terms of the order already mentioned made by Singh J on 5 October 2011 against SHAC and NAVA in the claim for an interim injunction brought by Harlan Laboratories.
I am satisfied that all defendants have been duly served with this application and supporting material.
The test for granting an injunction.
Before examining the evidence upon which Eli Lilly rely in seeking this order, I should first set out the basis in law on which such relief may be granted and the test which I must apply in deciding whether an injunction should be granted. Section 37(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 provides that
"The High Court may by order (whether interlocutory or final) grant an injunction in any case in which it appears to the court to be just and convenient to do so."
In accordance with familiar principles, the claimants must first demonstrate that they have a good arguable claim to the rights sought to be protected. Secondly, they must demonstrate that there is a serious question or issue to be tried. Thereafter, the grant or refusal of relief is a matter for the court's discretion on the balance of convenience. Because this...
To continue reading
Request your trial