“Persons Unknown entering or remaining without the consent of the Claimants on Land at Crackley Wood, Birches Wood and Broadwells Wood, Kenilworth, Warwickshire shown coloured green, blue and pink and edged red on Plan B annexed to the Particulars of Claim.”
“Penal Notice If you the within named Defendants or any of you disobey this order you may be held to be in contempt of court and may be imprisoned, fined or have your assets seized. Important Notice to the Defendants This Order prohibits you from doing the acts set out in this Order. You should read it very carefully. You are advised to consult a solicitor as soon as possible. You have the right to ask the Court to vary or discharge this Order.”
“[Mr Cuciurean] appeared intoxicated and refused to leave the Crackley Land. [Mr Cuciurean] was therefore arrested by Enforcement Agents, employed by [HCE], for preventing a High Court Enforcement Officer from carrying out his lawful duty. [Mr Cuciurean] became violent by resisting his arrest and was subsequently restrained using reasonable force and secured on the ground. Warwickshire Police were contacted. However, due to the lack of available space in custody and available policy units, they refused to attend to take [Mr Cuciurean] into custody. [Mr Cuciurean] was therefore dearrested at approximately 21:00 by the Enforcement Officer and excorted off the Crackley Land.”
“It will be noted that Cameron did not concern, and Lord Sumption did not expressly address, a third category of anonymous defendants, who are particularly relevant in ongoing protests and demonstrations, namely people who will or are highly likely in the future to commit an unlawful civil wrong, against whom a quia timet injunction is sought. He did, however, refer (at [15]) with approval to South Cambridgeshire Distict Council v. Gammell…[2005] EWCA Civ 1429 . in which the Court of Appeal held that persons who entered onto land and occupied it in breach of, and subsequent to the grant of, an interim injunction became persons to whom the injunction was addressed and defendants to the proceedings. In that case, pursuant to an order permitting alternative service, the claim form and the order were served by placing a copy in prominent positions on the land.”
“Lord Sumption also referred (at [11]) to Ineos, in which the validlty of an interim injunction against “persons unknown”, described in terms capable of including future members of a fluctuating group of protesters, was centrally in issue. Lord Sumption did not express disapproval of the case (then decided only at first instance).”
“Persons Unknown entering or remaining without the consent of the Claimants on Land at Crackley Wood, Birches Wood and Broadwells Wood, Kenilworth, Warwickshire shown coloured green, blue and pink and edged red on Plan B annexed to the Particulars of Claim.”
“15. There is a bespoke procedure for serving trespassers who are “persons unknown” with a claim for possession of the land underCPR 55.6 . That procedure was followed by the Claimants’ solicitors and the process servers, Mr Finch and Mr Seymour, but additional steps were also taken to bring these proceedings to the attention of anyone likely to have an interest in defending them.I am satisfied that the further steps that were taken, described in the evidence of Ms Jenkins, were both reasonable and sufficient, as evidenced by the fact that Mr Bishp and Mr Rukin [these were the Third and Fourth Defendants, obviously not persons unknown and specifically identified in the proceedings by name] were able to respond to the claim and instruct counsel to represent them. 16. The Claimants have made an application, to the extent that elements of the claim go beyond a claim for possession, for an order that the steps taken to bring the claim form to the attention of the defendants (including the “persons unknown” defendants) were good alternative service methods pursuant toCPR 6.15 and 6.27. I am satisfied that they were. Quite apart from the fact that these service methods sufficed to bring the proceedings to the attention of the two named defendants, Ms Jenkins’ second witness statement confirms that a number of interested parties have sought and obtained copies of the proceedings since the notice was published on the websites to which she refers.”
“30. This proved to be the most controversial aspect of the claim, and at one point I was minded to refuse such relief on the basis that the declaration would suffice to protect the Claimants’ interests. However, Mr Roscoe [counsel for the Claimants] made the valid point that an injunction may have a deterrent effect, at least so far as otherwise law-abiding protesters are concerned, and that the difficulties of enforcement which he acknowledged when pressing for declaratory relief have not prevented such relief from being granted by the courts in the past. 31. To the extent that injunctive relief was pursued against Mr Bishop and Mr Rukin personally, there was no evidence that either of these gentlemen was likely to trespass on the land in future if they were required by the Court to give possession back to the Claimants. Mr Wagner [counsel for Mr Bishop] assured me that this was so in the case of his client, and that if I granted an order for possession the only purpose for which Mr Bishop would return would be to assist in the dismantling of the camps and the removal of any structures erected by the protesters. Mr Powlesland [counsel for Mr Rukin], in echoing those assurances, pointed out that Mr Rukin had gone to the trouble of seeking out land that he believed did not belong to the Secretary of State on which to set up the protest site at Crackley, which was a clear indication that he would not deliberately set out to trespass on land to which the Claimants had rights of possession. 32. I made it very clear to Mr Bishop and Mr Rukin, who were present in court, that if they were found trespassing on the land in future, contrary to those assurances, it would not bode well for them in any contempt proceedings. I did not require any express undertakings to be given in lieu of an injunction because in order to obtain relief of either sort the Claimants must first establish a real and imminent risk of further torts being committed by the relevant defendant. The Claimants have failed to do so. That being the case, there is no need for either Mr Bishop or Mr Rukin to continue to be named defendants to these proceedings. 33. So far as the claim for injunctive relief against “persons unknown” (including new protesters) is concerned, there is no dispute that, apart from Mr Bishop and Mr Rukin, the previous and current occupiers of the…Crackley Land have not been identified by the Claimants. Both Mr Wagner and Mr Powlesland raised the question whether sufficient steps had been taken by the Claimants to attempt to identify those other persons. There was no evidence, for example, that any of the “persons unknown” referred to in the evidence of Mr Corvin who were encountered by contractors, were asked the simple question “who are you?”
“In the case of any judgment or order the court may – (a) dispense with service under rules 81.5 to 81.7 if the court thinks it just to do so; or (b) make an order in respect of service by an alternative method or at an alternative place”
“In the case of a judgment or order requiring a person not to do an act, the court may dispense with service of a copy of the judgment or order in accordance with rules 81.5 to 81.7 if it is satisfied that the person has had notice of it – (a) by being present when the judgment or order was given or made; or (b) by being notified of its terms by telephone, email or otherwise”
“…If the respondents did not, in fact, know of the terms of the order even though technically the order had been served as directed, then it is highly likely that a court would consider it inappropriate to impose any penalty for the breach…”
“11. The Claimants accepted, as do I, that Mr Bishop’s activities as a concerned local resident have been genuine and sincere, and that at all times he has acted responsibly and peacefully. He is seen as a very important moderating influence, who has forged a good relationship with the HS2 representatives. 12. Mr Rukin has a wider agenda, in that he is the Campaign Manager of “Stop HS2” which, as its name suggests, is opposed to the project in principle. However, so far as the occupation of the Cubbington Land This was the other tract of land with which the Judgment was concerned. I have, generally, omitted reference to the Cubbington Land in this judgment, as it is not directly relevant to the Incidents. and Crackley Land is concerned, Mr Rukin supports Mr Bishop’s evidence that this is aimed at protecting the ancient woodland and observing and recording HS2 Ltd and their contractors’ operations with a view to reporting any illegal activities to the relevant authorities. He denies that he or anyone associated with him or the camps has been responsible for litter or any anti-social behaviour on the land. 13. Unfortunately, the evidence of Ms Jenkins and Mr Corvon-Czarnodolski…on behalf of the Claimants indicates that not all trespassers on the Cubbington Land and Crackley Land are so well-behaved. People have carried out damage to the Heras fencing which is used to demarcate the land, in some areas pulling it down and abusing workmen who have taken in panels to repair it; nails and glass have been placed on roads used by construction traffic, and some people have actively blocked access to the sites or erected structures on them which have impeded the work.”
“21 I thus took the decision that the only way to complete a safe eviction (for both the protestors, HCE staff, [HS2’s] contractors and site security) and secure the Crackley Land under the powers afforded to me as the authorised High Court Enforcement Officer under the Writ to close [PROW165X]. This was done by placing metal heras fencing across the top and bottom sections of the PROW to prevent further access. 22 Following the eviction on26 March 2020 , it was then the intention of the [Claimants] to open the TPROW. However, while we considered opening the TPROW on a couple of occasions, I never considered it feasible to do so due to the recurrent (almost daily) incursions on to the Crackley Land (and the TPROW) by protestors. 23 The TPROW was therefore never opened. It remained closed between the dates (4 April 2020 to26 April 2020 ) on which the [Claimants] assert that [Mr Cuciurean] breached the Order. 24 The protestors were regularly informed by myself, enforcement officers from HCE and [the Claimants’] contractors that the TPROW was closed and had not been opened.”
“…This access across the Crackley Land was tolerated by the [Claimants] as the entirety of the Crackley Land was not required for all times for Phase One works. I have also been informed by employees of LM (the contractor employed by the Second [Claimant]) that there would be a significant and disproportionate cost to fence the entire perimeter…”
“If a person or a corporation is restrained by injunction from doing a particular act, that person or corporation commits a breach of the injunction and is liable for process of contempt, if he or it in fact does the act, and it is no answer to say that the act was not contumacious in the sense that, in doing it there was no direct intention to disobey the order.”
“In the great majority of cases the fact that a person does an act which is contrary to the injunction after having notice of its terms will almost inevitably mean that he is knowingly acting contrary to those terms. However, where a corporation is concerned, it may be a difficult matter to determine when a corporation is said to be acting knowingly.” 12-95 Yet there is no need to go so far as to show that the respondent realised that his conduct would constitute a breach, or even that he had read the order. This means that liability for civil contempt has been treated as though it were strict; that is to say, not depending upon establishing any specific intention either to breach the terms of the order or to subvert the administration of justice in general.”