The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Oxford (The University of Oxford) and Others v Mel Broughton and Others

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeMr Justice Grigson,Mr. Justice Holland
Judgment Date26 May 2006
Neutral Citation[2004] EWHC 2543 (QB),[2006] EWHC 1233 (QB)
CourtQueen's Bench Division
Date26 May 2006
Docket NumberCase No: HQ4X02793,Case No: HQ 04 X 2793

[2004] EWHC 2543 (QB)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

QUEENS BENCH DIVISION

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Before:

The Honourable Mr Justice Grigson

Case No: HQ 04 X 2793

Between:
(1) The Chancellor, Masters And Scholars Of The University Of Oxford (the University Of Oxford)
Claimants
(2) David Robert Holmes, Registrar Of The University Of Oxford (for And On Behalf Of The Employees And The Members Of The University (as Defined) Pursuant To Cpr 19.6)
(3) Jennifer Gregory (for And On Behalf Of The Employees And Shareholders Of The Contractors, Sub-contractors And Suppliers Of The University (as Defined) Pursuant To Cpr 19.6)
(4) The Oxford University Fixed Assets Ltd ("OUFAL")
and
(1) Mel Broughton
Defendants
(2) John Curtin
(3) Robert Cogswell
(4) Speak Campaigns
(5) Stop Primate Experiments At Cambridge ("SPEAC")
(6) Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty ("SHAC")
(7) Oxford Animal Rights Group
(8) People Against Cruelty To AnimalsWest Midlands
(9) West Midlands Animal Action
(10) Animal Liberation Front ("ALF")

Mr T Lawson-Cruttenden (instructed by Lawson-Cruttenden) for the Claimants

Mr Simon Dally (instructed by) for the 1st, 3 rd, 4 th, 6 th, 8 th and 9 th Defendants

Mr Broughton in person

Mr Curtin in person

Mr Cogswell in person

Dr. Gaston in person for SHAC

Pauline Burgess in person for the 8 th Defendants

The 5 th and 10 th Defendants were unrepresented

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.

Mr Justice Grigson Mr Justice Grigson
1

This is an application for the continuation of injunctive relief granted to the 2 nd and 3 rd Claimants against all Defendants. The injunction was initially granted ex parte by Mrs. Justice Cox on the 3 rd September 2004. The matter came before Mr Justice Simon on the 13 th of September 2004. There was not sufficient time for the matter to be heard. Mr. Justice Simon varied the terms of the injunction but continued it until this hearing. The time estimate was for 2 to 3 days. That was, in the event, grossly optimistic. It is to be hoped that time estimates for the actual hearing will be more accurate. They should include a sensible estimate of the time necessary for the trial judge to 'read himself into' the papers.

The parties.

2

The 1 st Claimant is the Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Oxford, referred to as the University.

3

The 2 nd Claimant is David Robert Holmes, Registrar of the University who acts as representative of the employees and members of the University pursuant to CPR 19.6.

4

The 3 rd Claimant is Jennifer Gregory as representative for the employees and shareholders of the contractors, sub-contractors and suppliers of the University pursuant to CPR 19.6.

5

I have given leave to add a 4 th Claimant, the Oxford University Fixed Assets Ltd ['OUFAL']. This Claimant is the contractor responsible for carrying out the work on the Research Laboratory. The 3 rd Claimant, Jennifer Gregory is expressly authorised by the 4 th Claimant to represent its employees and shareholders.

The Defendants

6

1st Defendant: Mel Broughton. Mr. Broughton is a Co-founder of SPEAK (the 4 th Defendant) and a spokesman for that organisation. He denies that he was an organiser of SHAC (the 6 th Defendant) and that he is associated with any other animal rights group or campaign. He states that he is not a member of ALF (the 10 th Defendant) and claims that his role as a spokesman for SPEAK is incompatible with membership of ALF.

7

On the 25 th February 2000 he was sentenced to 4 years imprisonment at the Northampton Crown Court for conspiracy to cause explosions likely to endanger life or property. It is argued that the fact of that conviction supports the suggestion that he was then a member of or closely associated with ALF. Mr. Broughton points out that the facts upon which this conviction was based occurred in 1998. Mr. Broughton has entered into a personal undertaking as a consequence of which the Claimants do not pursue their claim for interim injunctive relief against him. He has made representations on behalf of himself and SPEAK.

8

2nd Defendant: John Curtin. Mr. Curtin represents himself. He has filed no evidence. He has addressed me upon various of the issues. He relied upon the joint declaration of Greg Avery, Natasha Avery and Heather Nicholson as evidence that he was not involved with SPEAC as a founder or organiser. The 2 nd Claimant, Mr. Holmes asserts that Mr. Curtin was a member of ALF. Mr. Curtin accepts that in the past he has taken part in criminal activities in pursuance of his aims as an animal rights activist. Mr. Holmes also asserts that Mr. Curtin is an Co-leader and Co—founder of both SPEAC and SPEAK. Mr. Curtin denies both. He accepts that he was involved in tortious acts (trespass) as part of the SHAC campaign. He states that his only role as far as Oxford University is concerned is that he has attended two protests. Mr. Curtin has not entered any undertaking so it will be necessary to refer the evidence relating to his beliefs and activities in more detail. Mr. Curtin has been convicted of a number of criminal offences arising from his support of animal rights and has served sentences of imprisonment. The last conviction for an offence so motivated was on the 16 th July 1992, some 14 years ago, a fact which Mr. Curtin relies upon to support his contention that he is no longer prepared to commit crime in pursuit of his aims.

9

3rd Defendant: Robert Cogswell. Mr. Cogswell is a co-founder and a spokesman for SPEAK and the editor of Arkangel Website. He denies that he is associated with any other group or organisation: in particular he denies that he was an organiser of SHAC. He has a previous conviction. I do not regard it as relevant to these proceedings. He has given an undertaking in similar terms to that given by Mr. Broughton, with the same consequence.

10

4th Defendant: SPEAK campaigns. SPEAK is the name of the campaigns whose aim is to stop the construction of the research laboratory at Oxford. It was founded by the 1 st and 3 rd Defendants.

11

5 th Defendant: SPEAC. Stop Primate Experiments at Cambridge (SPEAC). It is common ground that the campaign to stop the construction of a research laboratory at Cambridge where experimentation of live animals would take place has succeeded. It is the 5 th Defendant's case that this organisation has ceased to exist. There is evidence that this organisation still has a website which has the same registration address as the Arkangel website, namely BCM 9240 London WC1N 3XX.

12

6th Defendant: Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC). This organisation was founded by, inter alia, Greg Avery, Natasha Avery and Heather Nicholson. In a joint declaration they state that neither Mr. Broughton, John Curtin nor Robert Cogswell have ever been members of SHAC, nor have they played any active role in the foundation, organisation or structure of SHAC. They assert that neither SPEAC nor SPEAK have been members of SHAC.

13

Dr Gastone is a representative of SHAC and has spoken on behalf of that organisation. Dr. Gastone has previous convictions arising from his beliefs in animal rights. On the 17 th October 2003 for criminal damage a community service order for 100 hours was imposed. On the 16 th January 2004 he was convicted at Lichfield and Tamworth Magistrates Court of two offences of aggravated trespass and ordered to perform community service. He tells me that this conviction is subject to an appeal. The incident relates to a demonstration against those who operate the Newchurch Guinea Pig Farm.

14

Greg Avery was convicted in March 2000 of harassment and in November 2001 at Basildon Crown Court for inciting a public nuisance. That offence arose from the campaign against HLS. Heather Avery was convicted of the latter offence. She has 3 convictions subsequent to that for public order offences. Natasha Avery was also convicted of inciting a public nuisance.

15

Evidence has been adduced on behalf of SHAC from Maxime Kaye, Helen Brand, Doreen Brand, Peter Radcliffe and others as to the draconian effect of the injunctions granted at the behest of Huntingdon Life Science against SHAC.

16

7 th Defendant: Oxford Animal Rights Group.

17

8 th Defendant: People against Cruelty to Animals – West Midlands.

18

9 th Defendant: West Midlands Animal Action. Mary Brough also known as Mary Brady has attended this hearing and has put in a written statement. She is an Oxford graduate and asserts that the effect of the injunction is "to criminalize her" as well as forbidding her to enter Oxford. She does not tell me how often she would normally visit Oxford, excluding visits for the purposes of demonstrating. She ignores the fact that the application before me is for the temporary extension of the present injunction.

19

10 th Defendant: ALF The Animal Liberation Front. ALF is not represented. That is no surprise as those who belong to this organisation are more likely than not to be engaged in criminal activities and consequently seek to remain anonymous. They do post bulletins on the Arkangel website publishing their activities.

20

Mr. Gratwick appears here as a representative of what it is convenient to refer to as law abiding protesters. He takes particular care to ensure that his actions are lawful.

Background

21

There is a body of opinion which holds that the use of live animals in research is both immoral and unjustified. How large is the number of persons holding that opinion is a matter of conjecture. Those who hold those opinions want to stop research which involves experiments on live animals. They can be described as the Animal Rights Movement. This movement is entirely amorphous. It has no structure only a community of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT