University of Birmingham v Persons Unknown [2015] EWHC 544 (Ch)

[2015] EWHC 544 (Ch)Claim No. A30BM060 and A30BM065
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION
Venue BIRMINGHAM DISTRICT REGISTRY, Birmingham Civil & Family Justice Centre
Priory Courts
33 Bull Street
Venue BirminghamDate 22 January 2015
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE PURLE, Q.C.
Between
UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAMClaimantPERSONS UNKNOWNDefendant
Transcribed by Cater Walsh Reporting Limited(Official Court Reporters and Audio Transcribers)1 st Floor, Paddington House, New Road, Kidderminster. DY10 1ALTel. 01562 60921; Fax 01562 743235; info@caterwalsh.co.ukTranscription Suite, 3 Beacon Road, Billinge, Wigan. WN5 7HETel. & Fax 01744 601880; mel@caterwalsh.co.uk
MISS KATHARINE HOLLAND, Q.C. instructed by SGH Martineau LLP appeared for Claimant(There was no attendance or representation on behalf of any Defendant)
J U D G M E N TJUDGE PURLE:
[1]This is an application to extend a Writ of Possession which I made in February of last year in relation to the Birmingham University Campus. I have been much assisted by Miss Holland QC, who has addressed me since 3 o'clock this afternoon, and it is now 20 to 5. I make no complaint about the lengths to which she has gone or the time that she has taken because she has done so in recognition of her duty on this particular application to be full and frank, the application being made without notice to anyone.[2]The application is supported by a witness statement by the Director of Legal Services at the University of Birmingham, Carolyn Pike. The problem that the University has faced and was facing in February last year was a pattern of disruptive and occupational protests of University buildings across the whole of the University campus, which was having a deleterious effect upon University life generally, both of students and staff, as well as of other lawful visitors.[3]It is apparent from Carolyn Pike's witness statement that there are three well-organised protest groups, all of whom appear to have connections with and support each other. One is called "Stop Fees, Stop Cuts", another is called "Defend Education" and the third is called the "National Campaign Against Fees and Cuts", known as NCAFC for short.[4]Their coordinated protests have grown since 2010, when they were started by "Stop Fees, Stop Cuts". "Defend Education", amongst other things, have advocated that the best way of obtaining their objectives is by closing the University down, which is clearly a step too far.[5]I should emphasise at the outset that the University supports freedom of speech as a fundamental principle, and my attention has been drawn to the Code of Practice of the University, and in particular to the following statement:
"The University is an academic community of staff and students. Central to this concept is the ability of all its members to freely challenge prevailing orthodoxies, query the positions and view of others and to put forward ideas that may sometimes be radical in their formulation. It is a core right of the University staff and student staff and students."
[6]The protests in this case, on the evidence, have continued since the possession order I made last year at regular intervals (all of which are listed in the witness statement of Miss Pike) in February, March, June, July and November of last year and in January of this year. At one stage in July of last year the High Court bailiffs were asked to help, but by the time they arrived the protest was effectively over and they did not, as they have confirmed in a recent email, then effect repossession of the site. In fact, the practical reality may be that they never will effect repossession of the entire site. They are only called in as and when there is a protest that the police or University authorities themselves are not able to deal with effectively. The activities of the protestors move around the site and their occupation of parts of the campus for protest does not usually embrace all, so that any disruption would be ended by simply clearing the building or part of the site in question. In July 2014 the Strathcona Building was affected, and the protestors had in fact left that building by the time the bailiffs arrived. Even had the bailiffs effected possession of the Strathcona Building, it may be that this would not have amounted to possession of the remainder of the site as indicated on the plan attached to the Possession Order. I do not think that matters, and do not need to decide the point.[7]The question is: have good reasons been shown for extending the Writ of Possession today? Even had the bailiffs taken possession in July 2014, it would still (as Miss Holland demonstrated by reference to Wiltshire County Council v Frazer (No. 2) [1986] 1 WLR 109) be open to the University to seek a Writ of Restitution as and when trouble flares up again. The only limitation would be on the court's discretionary power to issue such a writ.[8]It is clear from the Wiltshire case that where there are connected and coordinated actions of the kind with which the University is presently faced, a Writ of Restitution can properly issue. By parity of reasoning, it is appropriate also to extend a Writ of Possession where it has not been exhausted. The reasoning and justification for doing so are the same as in the case of granting a Writ of Restitution.[9]Student protests are planned. In particular a day of action is planned in the near future by the NCAFC. As I say, this group is connected with other groups, including "Defend Education". The aims of those groups are all to promote free education and to protest against what they regard as the syphoning off of money into the pockets of the Vice-Chancellor and others. I say nothing as to whether those aims are worthy, but they are legitimately within the area of free speech that the University promotes, and the contrary is not suggested.[10]The complaint before me, which was justified a year ago and is still justified, is that the means adopted, of disrupting University life to the extent of closing it down where possible, are not legitimate, and make trespassers of those taking part in protests having that effect. That is the basis upon which the possession order was made. It is still needed, and I will therefore extend the Writ of Possession for a further twelve months. It is appropriate to do so without notice, as that appears to be the process contemplated by the rules (current and previous – it is not entirely clear which apply). Further, the defendants all remain unknown and often appear on site during the more serious of protests masked, and therefore incapable of ready identification. This makes prior notice impracticable.[11]Accordingly, I will grant the order sought. ----------------

Cited in 2 later judgments