R v Chief Constable of Devon and Cornwall, ex parte Central Electricity Generating Board
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 20 October 1981 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1981] EWCA Civ J1020-1 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | 81/0390 |
| Date | 20 October 1981 |
In The Matter of The Queen V. Chief Constable of Devon
and Cornwall, Ex Parte Central Electricity Generating
Board
(Chief Constable of the Devon and Cornwall Constabulary)
[1981] EWCA Civ J1020-1
The Master of The Rolls
(Lord Denning)
Lord Justice Lawton
and
Lord Justice Templeman
81/0390
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
(MR. JUSTICE HODGSON and MR. JUSTICE McCULLOUGH)
Royal Courts of Justice.
MR. ANTHONY HOOLAHAN, Q.C. and MR. ANDREW CALDECOTT (instructed by H.M. Thomas, Esq., Solicitor, Central Electricity Generating Board) appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
MR. ALAN RAWLEY, Q.C. and MR. PHILIP MOTT (instructed by N.B. Jennings, Esq., Exeter) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
The coast of Cornwall is beautiful. Much of the inland is ugly. It is despoiled by china clay workings. Not far from them there is open farmland with small villages dotted around. Pleasant enough but not outstanding. The Central Electricity Generating Board view this as a possible site for a nuclear power station. They wish to survey it so as to compare it with other possible sites. The farmer objected to the survey. So did the villagers. They took up a stand against it. But on being told by the courts that it was unlawful for them to obstruct the survey, they desisted. They moved off the site. They obeyed the law. But then groups of outsiders came in from far and wide. They had no local connection with the place. They came anonymously. They would not disclose their identity. They would not give their names and addresses. They flouted the law. They wilfully obstructed the survey. Can these newcomers be moved off the site so that they obstruct no more? Can the Board move them off? Or, if the Board cannot do it, can the police be called in to help? The Chief Constable feels that he cannot use his force for the purpose. It would put his men in a bad light with the local inhabitants. What then is to be done?
THE NEED FOR ELECTRICITY
The whole of our country is now dependent on electricity. It is the driving force of industry. It is the source of light for homes. It is generated in huge power stations. At one time it was fuelled by coal. Afterwards by oil. In the future it will be by nuclear power. We are concerned here with its provision for the South-West of England.
To ensure this vital supply, Parliament has set up the Central Electricity Generating Board which I will call "the Board". At present they have five power stations to supply Cornwall and Devon. But these will not last for ever. The Board, looking to the future, feel that they should in time be replaced by one nuclear power station to supply the whole of the South-West of England. They have five sites under consideration. Any one of them might be suitable. But it is necessary for the Board to survey each of the sites so as to see if it will take the weight. They have had no difficulty in surveying four of the possible sites. But they have met with intense opposition in surveying the fifth site. It is near Luxulyan in Cornwall. On a farm owned by Mr. and Mrs. Searle. The survey would only take a few more days. It involves drilling a few holes and making a few seismic tests with explosives so as to see the nature of the subsoil. After the survey is finished the site would be left afterwards exactly as it was before. It would be entirely without prejudice to the future. If the Board did eventually think that this site would be the most suitable of the five, there would have to be a public inquiry at which all objectors could be heard and a decision by a minister responsible to Parliament. In short, there would be no nuclear power station built there unless Parliament was satisfied that it was in the interests of the consumers of electricity in the whole of the South-West of England—including as they do many industries of much importance.
This sort of problem is recurrent in modern society. The country as a whole needs to be provided with reservoirs for water, with military areas for defence, with airports for travel, with prisons for criminals, and so forth. The local inhabitants object most strongly. But still it does happen from time to time that their objections have to be overruled. It is much to be regretted but, if the national interest so demands, they must give way—remembering that they are to be fully compensated, so far as money can do it, for any property that is compulsorily acquired or any injurious effect to persons or property.
THE BOARD MET OPPOSITION
The Board here acted throughout in complete accord with their statutory powers and obligations. They gave due notice to the farmers, Mr. and Mrs. Searle, and sought their consent to the survey. It was not forthcoming. The Board informed them of the statutory provision which authorised entry to their land. They gave them notice that they were coming on the 24th February, 1981. News of it got through to the television people and the newspapers. On the 24th February, 1981 three of the Board's staff and three surveyors approached the site. They had written authority to enter. They found the way blocked by about 60 people, including Mr. and Mrs. Searle and a group known as "Luxulyan against Nuclear Development". The television people were there. Also newspaper reporters. Five policemen were present. Two of them controlled the crowd and the traffic. The representatives of the Board said to Mr. Searle: "It is obvious that you do not intend to let us on the land". Mr. Searle said: "That is correct". So the Board's representatives withdrew to the boos of the crowd.
THE BOARD GOT INJUNCTIONS
Now this opposition by Mr. and Mrs. Searle and their supporters was clearly unlawful. There is a section in the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 which makes it a criminal offence. Section 280 (9) gives the Board power, not only to enter land to survey it, but also to search and bore so as to ascertain the nature of the subsoil and the presence of minerals thereunder. Section 281 (2) says that:
"Any person who wilfully obstructs a person acting in the exercise of his powers under s.280 of this Act shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £20".
This has since been increased to £50.
The statute does not, however, contain any power of arrest. But it is clear law that the Board can enforce it either by issuing summonses before the magistrates or by applying for an injunction in the High Court.
On the 4th March, 1981 the Board issued writs against Mr. and Mrs. Searle and neighbouring farmers, Mr. and Mrs. Lawton, asking for an injunction to restrain them from preventing or interfering with the entry of the Board on to their land. On the 16th March, 1981 Mr. Justice Boreham granted the injunction.
The farmers obeyed the injunctions. They no longer blocked the way. On the 26th March, 1981 the Board's contractors entered on the land of Mr. and Mrs. Searle. They did quite a lot of survey work. They were not obstructed until the middle of May 1981. Then several local objectors appeared and sought to obstruct the operations. The contractors brought in drilling rigs and men to operate them. Then local objectors came in motor cars and blocked the entrances. On the 19th May, 1981 one rig got into the field. Mr. John St. John Bamford from Bodmin tried to stop it. He held on to it. He had to be manhandled clear of the moving rig or he would otherwise have been severely injured, if not killed. Mrs. Varcoe and Mr. and Mrs. Miller threw themselves under an approaching rig and had to be lifted clear of it. On the 20th May, 1981 drilling was started but objectors then started to climb on the rig and to interfere with the gear levers. This was so dangerous that drilling had to be stopped. One woman chained herself to the rig, and when she left a substitute took her place. The police took the names and addresses of the obstructors and the numbers of the cars. They were mainly local people from Luxulyan and places fairly near.
On the 22nd May, 1981 the Board issued a writ against 32 named persons and on the same day Mr. Justice Talbot granted an injunction against them. They too obeyed the injunction and moved off the site. They marched round the roads preceded, it is said, by the Lostwithiel Silver Band.
You might have thought that that would be the end of the matter: and that the rule of law had prevailed. But no. Groups of interlopers then came from far and wide and tried to stop the work. One group, calling itself the Cornish Republican Movement made an overnight attack on the drilling rig. Another group calling itself the Cornwall Anti-Nuclear Alliance started a systematic campaign of obstruction. They set up headquarters in a caravan. They had seven posts on the farm manned by 17 persons. They took up position in relays. As one party went off, another came on. And so forth. They called one another by their Christian names—Tom, Dick or Harry—or Susan, Mary or Jane—so that no one could discover their true names and addresses. Their organisers issued a leaflet giving instructions to volunteers who came to help them. I will quote part of it so that you may see what they were told to do:
"WELCOME:
1. It is peaceful and friendly—it must be kept that way—if at any time you feel unable to respond in such a way, please walk away from the situation.
5. The Drillers are basically friendly but have a job to do; be 'nice' but clear about why you are there.
6 (c) If a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R (Corner House Research and Another) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office
...of the Court of Appeal in R v Coventry City Council, Ex p Phoenix Aviation [1995] 3 All ER 37 and R v Chief Constable of Devon and Cornwall, Ex p Central Electricity Generating Board [1982] QB 458 were cited. Reference was made to the existing constitutional principle of the rule of law, ......
-
Yarl's Wood Immigration Ltd and Others v Bedfordshire Police Authority
...A similar approach was taken in R v Chief Constable of the Devon and Cornwall Constabulary ex p Central Electricity Generating BoardELR[1982] QB 458, which did concern public order. The CEGB had been prevented from surveying a site near Luxulyan to assess its suitability for a nuclear power......
-
R Frack Free Balcombe Residents Association v West Sussex County Council
...He placed particular emphasis on R v Chief Constable of the Devon and Cornwall Constabulary, ex p Central Electricity Generating Board [1981] 3 All ER 826, [1982] QB 458. He said at page 61 "The Court of Appeal there was concerned with the board's attempt to survey land in Cornwall with a ......
-
Harris v Sheffield United Football Club Ltd
...as, for instance, was often done when prosecutions were not brought for attempted suicide." 60 Some years later in R v. Chief Constable of Devon and Cornwall ex parte CEGB (1982) 1 Queen's Bench 458 Lord Denning, Master of the Rolls, repeated part of this judgment at p.472, where he introdu......
-
WORKPLACE SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN SINGAPORE: THE LEGAL CHALLENGE
...Torts (17th ed, 1995), chap 12. 45 Collins v Wilcock [1984] 3 All ER 374 at 378. 46 Wilson v Pringle [1986] 2 All ER 440 at 495 (CA). 47 [1982] QB 458 at 471. 48 Stephens v Myers (1830) 4 C&P 349, 172 ER 735; Read v Coker(1853) 13 CB 850, 138 ER 1437. 49 Bird v Jones (1845) 7 QB 742; Meerin......
-
Recent Judicial Decisions
...over to keep the peace.There were some dicta in R. v.ChiefConstable (if Devon and Cornwall ex parteCentral Electricity Generating Board (1982) 146 JP 91; [1982] QB 458, 471 and R. v.Sandbach ex parte Williams [1935] 2 KB 192,196 which suggested a wider meaning tothe expression. Furthermore,......
-
Recent Judicial Decisions
...dismiss this appeal.CASESREFERREDTO INTHATJUDGMENTRvChiefConstableofDevon and Cornwall, ex p. Central Electricity Generating Board[1981] 3 All ER 826; [1982] QB 458; [1981] 3 WLR 967, CA.RvHowell [1981] 3 All ER 383; [1982] QB 416; [1981] 3 WLR 501, CA.RvPodger [1979] Crim LR 524, Crown Ct.......
-
Divisional Court
...once and for all of Lord Denning's wide test from R v ChiefConstableofDevon and Cornwall,exp Central Electricity Generating Board[1982]QB 458, approving the dictum that there must be either violence orthe threat of violence for a breach of the peace to arise, and establishingthat the standa......