National Highways Ltd v Arne Springorum
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice William Davis |
| Judgment Date | 02 February 2022 |
| Neutral Citation | [2022] EWHC 205 (QB) |
| Docket Number | Case No: QB-2021-003576, QB-2021-3626 and QB-2021-3737 |
| Year | 2022 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
[2022] EWHC 205 (QB)
Lord Justice William Davis
Mr Justice Johnson
Case No: QB-2021-003576, QB-2021-3626 and QB-2021-3737
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
David Elvin QC, Michael Fry and Jonathan Welch (instructed by DLA Piper UK LLP) for the Claimant
Owen Greenhall (instructed by Hodge Jones & Allen) for the Third Defendant;
The other defendants appeared in person
Hearing dates: 1–2 February 2022
Approved Judgment
This is the judgment of the court to which we both made substantial contributions. Between September and November 2021 a series of protests was carried out by members of a group calling itself “Insulate Britain”. Many protestors blocked motorways and other roads, usually by sitting down on and/or gluing themselves to the road surface and so preventing the flow of traffic. Others went onto the hard shoulder of motorways so as to endanger themselves and to distract the fast-moving traffic on the motorways. On 21 September 2021 Lavender J granted the claimant an injunction to restrain such activity on the M25 motorway (“the order”).
This is the third in a series of applications made by the claimant for the committal for contempt of court of those it says have breached the order.
The first application was determined on 17 November 2021 — National Highways Limited v Ana Heyatawin and others [2021] EWHC 3078 (QB). At the time of that hearing the protests were continuing to take place. The Divisional Court (Dame Victoria Sharp P and Chamberlain J) dealt with nine defendants who the claimant alleged had, on 8 October 2021, breached the order. The court found that the breaches of the order were proved. The defendants were committed to prison for terms of between 3 and 6-months. In the absence of any reasonable basis for concluding that the defendants would comply with the court's orders in the future, the court did not consider that it would be right to suspend the orders for committal (at [65]). The defendants to that application included Ben Taylor and Benjamin Buse. They were committed to prison for terms of 6 months and 4 months respectively.
The second application was determined on 15 December 2021 — National Highways Limited v Benjamin Buse and others [2021] EWHC 3404 (QB). By that stage the series of protests had come to an end, and no further protests were planned in the immediate future. The Divisional Court (Dingemans LJ and Johnson J) dealt with nine defendants who had on 27 October 2021 (and, in one case, also on 8 October 2021) breached the order. Again, the breaches of the order were found proved. The defendants to that application included Benjamin Buse, Biff Whipster, Diana Warner, Paul Sheeky, Ruth Jarman, Stephen Gower, Stephen Pritchard and Sue Parfitt. Benjamin Buse was committed to prison for a term of 30 days to run consecutively to the 4-month term that had been imposed following the first application. Diana Warner (who initially failed to attend the hearing) was committed to prison for a term of 2-months. Biff Whipster (who had acted in breach of the injunction on two separate occasions) was committed to prison for consecutive terms of 2-months and 30 days, the order for committal being suspended for a period of 2 years on condition that he must not take any of the steps that are forbidden by the order. The remaining defendants were committed to prison for terms of 2 months, the orders being suspended on the same terms. The court decided that there was a principled basis to suspend the orders for committal in those cases because the protests were not continuing, a “dialogue” had started to take place between the court and the defendants, and because of what the court had heard in each individual case (see per Dingemans LJ at [57]).
This present application concerns three further protest events that took place on the M25, two on 29 October 2021 and one on 2 November 2021. Each of the defendants took part in one of those events. The claimant says that each defendant thereby breached the order. It seeks an order determining that the defendants are in contempt of court and providing for their committal or other sanction.
The defendants each accept that they were validly served with the order. In relation to the events on 29 October 2021, the relevant defendants admit that they breached the order in the terms alleged by the claimant, and that they are therefore in contempt of court. The issue for the court in those cases is the sanction that should be imposed on each defendant.
Three defendants, Arne Springorum, Jessica Causby and Liam Norton, are said to have breached the order by their acts on 2 November 2021. On behalf of Jessica Causby, Mr Owen Greenhall argues that the claimant cannot prove a breach of the order by any defendant on that date. Mr Springorum and Mr Norton expressly dissociate themselves from that submission. They assert that they were in breach of the order. We are satisfied that their purported admissions cannot prevail if in fact and law Mr Greenhall is correct.
The order
On 21 September 2021 the claimant made an urgent application for an interim injunction against “persons unknown causing the blocking, endangering, slowing down, obstructing or otherwise preventing the free flow of traffic onto or along the M25 motorway for the purposes of protesting”. Lavender J made an order the same day. The order defined the M25 as “the London Orbital Motorway including but not limited to the verges, central reservation, on- and off-slip roads, overbridges and underbridges including the Dartford Crossing and Queen Elizabeth II Bridge, and any apparatus related to that motorway”. It forbids the persons against whom the order was made from:
(1) Blocking, endangering, slowing down, preventing, or obstructing the free flow of traffic onto or along or off the M25 for the purposes of protesting.
(2) Causing damage to the surface or to any apparatus on or around the M25 including but not limited to painting, damaging by fire, or affixing any item or structure thereto.
(3) Affixing themselves to any other person or object on the M25.
(4) Erecting any structure on the M25.
(5) Tunnelling in the vicinity of the M25.
(6) Entering onto the M25 unless in a motor vehicle.
(7) Abandoning any vehicle or item on the M25 with the intention of causing an obstruction.
(8) Refusing to leave the area of the M25 when asked to do so by a police constable, National Highways Traffic Officer or High Court Enforcement Officer.
(9) Causing, assisting or encouraging any other person to do any of the prohibited acts above.
(10) Continuing any of the prohibited acts above.
The order stated in bold capitalised text that breach of the order may lead to imprisonment, or a fine, or seizure of assets.
Each of the defendants accepts that they were validly served with the order (in some instances by means of forms of alternative service that had been authorised by the court).
Protests on the M25 following the order
Protests prior to 29 October 2021
The reaction to the order from Insulate Britain was described by Dame Victoria Sharp P in Heyatawin at [15]–[18]:
“15. On various dates and in various locations, Insulate Britain protestors publicly burned copies of the M25 Order.
16. On 28 September 2021, Insulate Britain posted an article on its website in these terms:
“INJUNCTION? WHAT INJUNCTION?
…Yesterday, 52 people blocked the M25, in breach of the terms of an injunction granted to the Highways Agency on 22nd September.
A second injunction was granted on 24th September covering the A2, A20 and A2070 trunk roads and M2 and M20 motorway, after an Insulate Britain action outside the Port of Dover last Thursday.
Insulate Britain says actions will continue until the government makes a meaningful commitment to insulate all of Britain's 29 million leaky homes by 2030, which are among the oldest and most energy inefficient in Europe.”
17. On 29 September 2021, there was a further post as follows:
“THE SECOND TIME TODAY
…Insulate Britain has returned for a second time today to block the M25 at Swanley (Junction 3).
…Today's actions are in breach of a High Court injunction imposed on 22nd September, which prohibits ‘causing the blocking, endangering, slowing down, preventing, or obstructing the free flow of traffic onto or along or off the M25 for the purposes of protesting.’”
18. On 30 September, Insulate Britain posted that it had blocked the M25 “for the third day this week” and that it was now “raising the tempo”. It added that its actions were in breach of a High Court injunction.”
The protest on 8 October 2021 which resulted in the first application involved 15 to 20 protestors sitting or lying in the road at the roundabout at junction 25 of the M25. Both lanes of the carriageway leading from the M25 slip road were blocked. There was a long line of traffic. The disruption lasted for about 1 1/2 hours.
The protest on 27 October 2021 which resulted in the second application took place at the A206 junction with the A282/M25. Protestors sat in the road across the westbound carriageway. It took around an hour to clear the protestors. There were substantial traffic delays.
First protest on 29 October 2021 – junctions 28–29 of the M25
At about 8am on 29 October 2021 police were called to the M25 between junctions 28 and 29. When they arrived Benjamin Buse, Christian Rowe, Diana...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shell v Persons Unknown
...by the court – National Highways Ltd v Buse [2021] EWHC 3404 (QB) ( per Dingemans LJ at [57]) and National Highways Ltd v Springorum [2022] EWHC 205 (QB) ( per William Davis LJ at 11 In spring 2022, protests involving similar tactics re-commenced, but directed at the fossil fuel industry ......
-
High Speed Two (HS2) Ltd v Four Categories of Persons Unknown
... ... As would be expected in relation to such a major national infrastructure project, the scheme was preceded by extensive consultation, ... Land excludes any rights of the public that remain over public highways and other public rights of way and the proposed draft order deals with ... Also, in National Highways Limited v Springorum [2022] EWHC 205 (QB) , [8(5)], climate protesters were injuncted from ... ...
-
National Highways Ltd v Persons unknown Causing the Blocking of, Endangering, or Preventing the Free Flow of Traffic on the M25 Motorway, A2, A20 and A2070 Trunk Roads and M2 and M20 Motorway, A1(M), A3, A12, A13, A21, A23, A30, A414 and A3113 Trunk Roads and the M1, M3, M4, M4 Spur, M11, M26, M23 and M40 Motorways for the Purpose of Protesting
...in NHL v Heyatawin and others [2021] EWHC 3078 (QB), NHL v Buse and others [2021] EWHC 3404 (QB), and NHL v Springorum and others [2022] EWHC 205 (QB). 5 The Claimant sought summary judgment against 133 named Defendants. Those named Defendants have all been arrested by various police for......
-
Elliott Cuciurean v Secretary of State for Transport
...National Highways Limited v Buse & Others. [2021] EWHC 3404 (QB) (“ Buse”) and National Highways Ltd v Springorum and Others [2022] EWHC 205 (QB) (“ 56 As to the test which this court should apply, an appeal like this is not a re-hearing but a review: see CPR r.52.21(1). This court will o......