Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd &Ors v Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | The Honourable Mrs Justice McGowan,Mrs Justice McGowan |
| Judgment Date | 27 October 2014 |
| Neutral Citation | [2014] EWHC 3429 (QB) |
| Docket Number | Case No: IHQ/14/0403 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Date | 27 October 2014 |
[2014] EWHC 3429 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
The Honourable Mrs Justice McGowan
Case No: IHQ/14/0403
Mr Lawson-Cruttenden (instructed by Richard Slade and Company) for the Claimant
Hearing dates: 8th October 2014
Approved Judgment
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
Introduction
The First Claimant in this case is a company based in the UK. It has a number of premises in England and a large number of employees. Its business involves conducting research for the purposes of the pharmaceutical, biotechnological, agro-chemical, veterinary, food and chemical industries. It also brings this action on behalf of the Novartis group worldwide, pursuant to s. 3A Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The Second Claimants are Andrew Grantham, chief security officer for the First Claimant, and Nicola Maxted, solicitor for the First Claimant, who act on behalf of all the officers and employees of the First Claimant and the worldwide group in a representative capacity under CPR 19.6.
The First Defendant is an unincorporated association; a group of people who share the common aim of preventing the use of live animals in experimentation and seeking, to that end, the closure of the First Claimant's business. The umbrella group is known as "SHAC"; Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty and it is represented under CPR 19.6 by two named individuals, Dr Max Gastone and Debbie Vincent. The Second Defendants are people who currently intend, or who are likely to embark upon, a course of protest amounting to, at the least, unlawful harassment. They have a common purpose but not a common form and are incapable of being identified or described with any precision.
Background
There has been a long history of protest at sites occupied by the First Claimant for the purposes of their business activities and on occasion at the home addresses of its officers or employees. Much of that protest has been lawful and whatever the inconvenience created it has not caused physical injury to any individual, intimidation to a criminal level or damage to property. On other occasions the protest has gone beyond the limit of what is lawful and in some cases to the point where successful prosecutions have been brought.
The Claimants have, on many occasions, sought and obtained injunctions preventing anticipated acts of violence against individuals or their property. The current position is:
a. The First Defendants are, and continue to be bound by an injunction made by HHJ Seymour QC on 24 March 2010, in proceedings known as Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK & another v SHAC & others, claim number HQ06X03887, as amended by Phillips J on 14thApril 2014 (the first claim).
b. On 31 March 2014 in these proceedings, (the second claim), Spencer J gave the Claimants leave "to join as Persons Unknown those unknown persons who are conducting or may conduct protesting and/or unlawful activities against the Claimants". Those unknown persons became the Second Defendants to this action.
c. On 14 April 2014 Phillips J granted an interlocutory order that the Second Defendants be restrained from pursuing a course of conduct which amounts to harassment of the protected persons, within the meaning of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. That order lists specific activities to be permitted and prohibited.
d. On 15 July 2014 the matter came before HHJ Seymour QC who granted a further interim order and adjourned the matter for argument. The Claimants were represented but the Defendants were not. Nor on this occasion, as has happened in the past, did they have anyone in court to speak on their behalf.
The Claimants now seek full injunctive relief against the Second Defendants. They do not seek to consolidate the first and second claims.
It is submitted that First Defendants are certainly aware of these proceedings. Notice has been sent to those who can be identified to operate under the SHAC umbrella and those who have previously assisted them in court proceedings. Debbie Vincent is currently in custody, she is serving a sentence of six years imprisonment for an offence of conspiracy to blackmail, she was convicted, with others, on 19 March 2014 before the Crown Court at Winchester. She, again with others, is also awaiting sentence at the Crown Court at Southwark for her admitted part in offences under s. 145 Serious and Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. Those being offences of unlawful interference with contractual relationships so as to harm an animal research organisation.
The Claimants rely upon evidence set out in witness statements from Andrew Grantham and Nicola Maxted. Those statements show, they allege, that there has been a change in the nature of the means proposed to achieve the general aims of the First and Second Defendants. The material exhibited clearly shows, both by historical account and stated intent, that some of those concerned are willing to break not only the terms of any injunction but the criminal law generally. The Claimants apprehend the continuation and expansion of acts of violence and/or intimidation against their staff and officers, as well as their premises.
In the fourth witness statement of Nicola Maxted, dated 9 September 2014, there is exhibited a download from the SHAC website as NM/3. It is headed, "SHAC ENDS We made history……The future is ours." It was downloaded on or about 13 August 2014. The document contains the following statements of achievement and intent;
"Alongside the legal protests carried out by SHAC activists, there have been relentless and hard hitting ALF actions carried out against HLS' suppliers, customers and financial backers. Courageous freedom fighters have risked breaking the law to commit direct action in the name of animals."
"It's through this innovative combination of SHAC's high profile lawful protest activity and the ALF's unconventional, but highly effective tactics, that the campaign against Huntingdon Life Sciences has been so successful."
"With the onslaught of government repression against animal rights activists in the UK, it's time to re-assess our methods, obstacles and opponent's weaknesses, to build up our solidarity network for activists and to start healing the effects of repression.
Although we're announcing the closure of the SHAC campaign, it will always be an important part of our history and a reminder of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brett Wilson Llp v Person(s) Unknown, Responsible for the Operation and Publication of the Website www.solicitorsfromhelluk.com (Defendant(s)
...were all interim, the court can grant final injunctive relief against persons unknown. McGowan J did so in Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd v Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty & Ors [2014] EWHC 3429 (QB), where she concluded on the written evidence put before her that the test for summary judgm......
-
GYH v Persons Unknown
...to grant final injunctive relief against persons unknown. He referred to the fact that McGowan J did so in Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd v Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty [2014] EWHC 3429 (QB), where she held, at para 20, that she had the power to grant a final order under s 37(1) Senior C......