Transport for London v Persons Unknown
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Eyre |
| Judgment Date | 26 May 2023 |
| Neutral Citation | [2023] EWHC 1201 (KB) |
| Court | King's Bench Division |
| Docket Number | Case No: KB-2022-003542 |
[2023] EWHC 1201 (KB)
Mr Justice Eyre
Case No: KB-2022-003542
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Andrew Fraser-Urquhart KC and Charles Forrest (instructed by TfL) for the Claimant
Benjamin Buse, Carole Caldwell, Joanna Blackman, Mair Bain, Anthony Harvey, James Green, Benjamin Larson, Matthew Parry and Rachel Payne (Named Defendants 8, 63, 65, 74, 102, 110, 140, 143, and 145) attended.
No attendance by or representation for the other Defendants
Hearing date: 4 th May 2023
Approved Judgment
This judgment was handed down by the Judge remotely by circulation to the parties' representatives by email and release to The National Archives. The date and time for hand-down is deemed to be 10:00am on Friday 26 th May 2023.
Introduction.
The Claimant is the highway authority and traffic authority for the GLA Roads. Those are roads in the Greater London area which were formerly trunk roads. Although the GLA Roads comprise only 5% of the length of London's road network they carry approximately one-third of the traffic in the Greater London area.
This judgment follows the trial of the Claimant's claim for a final injunction against 168 named defendants (“the Named Defendants”) together with persons unknown. As will be seen below the Claimant no longer seeks an injunction against most of the Named Defendants. The Claimant seeks an injunction preventing certain forms of disruptive protest on a number of the GLA Roads against the remainder of the Named Defendants and against persons unknown. The claim is brought in response to actions taken as a part of the campaigning activity of Just Stop Oil (“JSO”).
The background to these proceedings is set out in detail in the judgments of Freedman and Cavanagh JJ at [2022] EWHC 3102 (KB) and [2023] EWHC 402 (KB) respectively given when granting the Claimant interim injunctions in this matter. The general history of related protest activity undertaken as part of campaigns by Insulate Britain and Extinction Rebellion is summarised by Morris J in his judgment in Transport for London v Persons Unknown & others [2023] EWHC 1038 (KB) (“ Insulate Britain”). I adopt the analysis of the history set out in those judgments and need only give the shortest of summaries here. After the trial of this matter Cotter J handed down his judgment in National Highways Ltd v Persons Unknown & others [2023] EWHC 1073 (KB) which primarily addressed matters arising out the activities of the Insulate Britain campaign but which also referred to aspects of the JSO campaign.
JSO is a campaigning group. Its particular demand is that the government should halt all licensing consents for the exploration, development, and production of fossil fuels in the United Kingdom. However, it lends its name to a wider coalition of campaigning groups with related aims and overlapping bodies of supporters. Those groups include Insulate Britain and Extinction Rebellion. Their campaigns arise out of environmental concerns and in particular out of beliefs as to the action needed to address the effects of climate change and/or to prevent further harmful effects from the use of fossil fuels. The failure of the government to take the measures or at the speed which the members and supporters of these groups regard as adequate caused a number of those persons to engage in protests.
The protest action with which I am concerned has taken the form of the blocking of roads. It has involved those protesting taking various steps to hinder their removal from the roads in question; to extend the duration of the road blockage; and to heighten the effect of those blockages. The methods used have included the linking together of those engaged in obstructing the highway; the affixing of persons or objects to the highway or to structures on the highway; and the damaging of such structures (examples have included the covering of signs). Latterly the protests have taken the form of slow marching namely walking slowly in a body on a road so as markedly to reduce the speed and flow of traffic along the road. Those actions have had and have been intended to have a significant disruptive effect on the use of the roads in question by other road users. That disruptive effect has not been limited to the roads actually obstructed nor to the immediate vicinity of the obstruction as Freedman, Cavanagh, and Morris JJ have explained. Those speaking for JSO and individual members of the campaign have asserted their intention to continue with such protests until their objectives are achieved. The peak of the activity was in October 2022 when for a period roads were being obstructed daily in London though there was also a high level of such activity in November and December 2022. There has been some reduction in this disruptive activity since then. The Claimant says that this reduction is not the result of any change of belief or of approach on the part of those engaging in these campaigns but that it has been caused by a combination of the harsher weather during the winter months and of the interim injunctions which have been granted in this matter (together with other court orders in related proceedings).
The judgments of Freedman and Cavanagh JJ set out the history to February 2023. As disclosed by the updating evidence from the Claimant the activities of the JSO campaign since then have been largely confined to instances of slow marching on various roads. However, it is of note that those speaking for JSO have said that the group has been engaged in a campaign of civil disobedience since 24 th April 2023 and that there appears to have been an increase in the instances of slow marching since then. There has been no renunciation by JSO or those speaking on its behalf of the previous forms of disruption. It is also to be noted that there have been repeated assertions by those speaking for JSO that the campaign of disruption will continue until the group's objectives have been achieved.
The Procedural History .
The claim form was issued on 20 th October 2022.
On 18 th October 2022 by an order sealed on 19 th October 2022 Yip J granted an interim injunction. The injunction was with some modifications extended until the disposal of this matter by orders made by Freedman and Cavanagh JJ on 4 th November 2022 and 27 th February 2023 respectively. Those judges also gave various directions for the further conduct of the case.
There was some addition of further named defendants in the course of the proceedings. By the time of the trial before me there were 168 Named Defendants. However, the Claimant no longer sought relief in respect of two of those. They were Arne Springorum and Xavier Gonzalez Trimmer (Named Defendants 5 and 48 respectively): the former had not been served and the latter had sadly died in the course of the proceedings.
Nine of the Named Defendants attended the hearing. At the hearing eight of these gave undertakings in terms mirroring the injunction sought by the Claimant and the ninth, Joanna Blackman (Named Defendant 65) provided a signed form of undertaking subsequently. In light of that the Claimant no longer sought injunctive relief against those defendants.
With the exception of Joanna Blackman those Named Defendants who attended the hearing had sent written submissions to the court or to the Claimant. In the case of Anthony Harvey (Named Defendant 102) I was told that the submission had been approved by and was being made on behalf the other Named Defendants who attended the hearing (with the exception of Joanna Blackman) and further forty-two Named Defendants. I gave those Named Defendants who attended the hearing an opportunity to address the court. A number of them did so while others chose to confirm that they stood by the contents of their written submissions. Those written and oral submissions explained the conduct and motivation of their makers and commented on the actions of JSO more generally. In addition they raised matters relevant to the assessment of the degree of risk of further conduct of the kind which the Claimant seeks to enjoin and of the proportionality of and need for relief by way of injunction. Although those Named Defendants who have given undertakings are no longer at risk of being subject to the injunction sought I have taken account of their submissions when considering the position of the other Named Defendants and of Persons Unknown in the ways I will explain below.
A further six of the Named Defendants did not attend but did send written submissions to the court or to the Claimant. Those were David Crawford (Named Defendant 15), Louise Lancaster (Named Defendant 30), Meredith Williams (Named Defendant 33), Jane Neece (Named Defendant 63), Christine Welch (Named Defendant 64), and Adrian Howlett (Named Defendant 71).
At the hearing I indicated that I would not hand down any judgment until after Friday 19 th May 2023 to give further Named Defendants an opportunity to proffer undertakings. A considerable number of those defendants did so (including the six Named Defendants listed in the preceding paragraph) with the consequence that no further relief is sought against them. The consequence is that there only remain ten Named Defendants against whom the Claimant seeks a final injunction.
No other Named Defendant either attended the hearing or made any representations. I was, however, satisfied that there had been compliance with the directions for alternative service made by Cavanagh J and that it was appropriate to proceed with the trial in the absence of the other Named Defendants.
The Relief sought by the Claimant .
In the course of this action the Claimant has revised the relief it is...
To continue reading
Request your trial