“The action is part of a sustained campaign, which saw a march and blockade of the Arla Factory by Animal Rebellion in March the previous year.” “Thirteen of the world’s largest dairy corporations, including Arla, together emitted more greenhouse gases in 2017 than major polluters BHP and ConocoPhillips, mining and oil giants respectively.” “We’re not just demanding that Arla go plant-based by 2025, we’re demanding that the government supports companies like Arla by funding a just transition for workers in meat and dairy industries to just and sustainable alternatives.” “You can read more about some of those involved in our campaign against Arla here.”
“Animal Rebellion is calling on the dairy industry to transition to plant-based production by 2025…”
“The near term goal is fairly simple, this September we will be disrupting the dairy supply across the UK with 500 people over a 1-2 week period, cutting off the supply of milk to supermarkets and causing unignorable high-level disruption which will be felt by tens of millions of people across the UK and be a sustained no.1 news story. This will result in more than one thousand arrests and put the damage and exploitation of animal agriculture at centre stage. We will then build on that momentum with a large-scale occupation in the centre of London… This is the beginning of a long term civil resistance project, where we will be raising the stakes through the actions we take and also continuing our resistance through the court systems… Strategy The two key mechanisms / tools to achieve our aims are large-scale material disruption and the drama of interactions with the public by more localised disruptions… We need to make sure we create a crisis at the start, so going in with maximum intensity to make sure our issue is a number one news story, and after that we can keep the debate going with relatively minimal effort…. A key action design principle is all actions must be “simple, unbeatable and repeatable”. … Action plan: Phase 1- warm up actions and mobilisation starting at the beginning of June … Phase 2- two weeks high-intensity in September with 500+ people The objective is simple- we are going to have supermarket shelves empty of milk for two weeks, and will stack all energy and mobilisation towards this goal. We will be asking for people to commit to taking one week off. This phase will have a clear end and a clear ask for people to join us at phase 3… Phase 3- mobilise to the city Phase 3 will be an openly-organised mass occupation in London with no barrier to entry. We will mobilise during Phase 2 and we can double down on this by taking out newspaper adverts and by our spokespeople press releases talking about the meeting date and location. This will happen a week or so after Phase 2 and may be part of a broader coalition with XR [Extinction Rebellion] and JSO [Just Stop Oil].”
“10(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. … (2) The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.”
“(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly … (2) No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. …”
“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law. The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of the State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.”
“63. That then calls for the usual enquiry which needs to be conducted under the HRA. It requires consideration of the following questions: (1) Is what the defendant did in exercise of one of the rights in articles 10 or 11? (2) If so, is there an interference by a public authority with that right? (3) If there is an interference, is it ‘prescribed by law’? (4) If so, is the interference in pursuit of a legitimate aim as set out in paragraph (2) of article 10 or article 11, for example the protection of the rights of others? (5) If so, is the interference ‘necessary in a democratic society’ to achieve that legitimate aim? 64. That last question will in turn require consideration of the well-known set of sub-questions which arise in order to assess whether an interference is proportionate: (1) Is the aim sufficiently important to justify interference with a fundamental right? (2) Is there a rational connection between the means chosen and the aim in view? (3) Are there less restrictive alternative means available to achieve that aim? (4) Is there a fair balance between the rights of the individual and the general interest of the community, including the rights of others?”
“there is no basis in the Strasbourg jurisprudence to support the respondent’s proposition that the freedom of expression linked to the freedom of assembly and association includes a right to protest on privately owned land or upon publicly owned land from which the public are generally excluded. Instead, it has consistently said that articles 10 and 11 do not “bestow any freedom of forum” in the specific context of interference with property rights (see Appleby at [47] and [52]). There is no right of entry to private property or to any publicly owned property. The further that the Strasbourg Court has been prepared to go is that where a bar on access to property has the effect of preventing any effective exercise of rights under articles 10 and 11, or of destroying the essence of those rights, then it would not exclude the possibility of a State being obliged to protect them by regulating property rights.” (3) As the European Court explained in Appleby at [43], one must also consider the rights under Article 1 of Protocol 1: “while freedom of expression is an important right, it is not unlimited. Nor is it the only Convention right at stake. Regard must also be had to the property rights of the owner of the shopping centre under Article 1 of Protocol No.1”
“(1) There is an obstruction of the highway which is more than de minimis; occupation of part of a road, thus interfering with people having the use of the whole road, is an obstruction… (2) The obstruction must be wilful, ie. deliberate; (3) The obstruction must be without lawful authority or excuse; ‘without lawful excuse’ may be the same thing as ‘unreasonably’ or it may be that it must in addition be shown that the obstruction is unreasonable.”
“The question to which this appeal gives rise is whether the law today should recognise that the public highway is a public place, on which all manner of reasonable activities may go on. For the reasons I have set out below in my judgment it should. Provided these activities are reasonable, do not involve the commission of a public or private nuisance, and do not amount to an obstruction of the highway unreasonably impeding the primary right of the public to pass and repass, they should not constitute a trespass. Subject to these qualifications, therefore, there would be a right to peaceful assembly on the public highway.”
“The owner of land adjoining a highway has a right of access to the highway from any part of his premises. This is so…whether he is entitled to the whole or some interest in the ground subjacent to the highway or not. The rights of the public to pass along the highway are subject to this right of access; just as the right of access is subject to the rights of the public and must be exercised subject to the general obligations as to nuisance and the like imposed upon a person using the highway.”
“17. That case [Wolverhampton] involved Travellers, but while that context informed some of the requirements that the court indicated should be fulfilled before an injunction is granted, most of its requirements are equally applicable to other types of cases such as protest cases like the present (of which there now a number): "167. These considerations lead us to the conclusion that, although the attempts thus far to justify them are in many respects unsatisfactory, there is no immoveable obstacle in the way of granting injunctions against newcomer Travellers, on an essentially without notice basis, regardless of whether in form interim or final, either in terms of jurisdiction or principle. But this by no means leads straight to the conclusion that they ought to be granted, either generally or on the facts of any particular case. They are only likely to be justified as a novel exercise of an equitable discretionary power if: (i) There is a compelling need, sufficiently demonstrated by the evidence, for the protection of civil rights (or, as the case may be, the enforcement of planning control, the prevention of anti-social behaviour, or such other statutory objective as may be relied upon) in the locality which is not adequately met by any other measures available to the applicant local authorities (including the making of byelaws). This is a condition which would need to be met on the particular facts about unlawful Traveller activity within the applicant local authority's boundaries. (ii) There is procedural protection for the rights (including Convention rights) of the affected newcomers, sufficient to overcome the strong prima facie objection of subjecting them to a without notice injunction otherwise than as an emergency measure to hold the ring. This will need to include an obligation to take all reasonable steps to draw the application and any order made to the attention of all those likely to be affected by it (see paras 226-231 below); and the most generous provision for liberty (ie permission) to apply to have the injunction varied or set aside, and on terms that the grant of the injunction in the meantime does not foreclose any objection of law, practice, justice or convenience which the newcomer so applying might wish to raise. (iii) Applicant local authorities can be seen and trusted to comply with the most stringent form of disclosure duty on making an application, so as both to research for and then present to the court everything that might have been said by the targeted newcomers against the grant of injunctive relief. (iv) The injunctions are constrained by both territorial and temporal limitations so as to ensure, as far as practicable, that they neither outflank nor outlast the compelling circumstances relied upon. (v) It is, on the particular facts, just and convenient that such an injunction be granted. It might well not for example be just to grant an injunction restraining Travellers from using some sites as short-term transit camps if the applicant local authority has failed to exercise its power or, as the case may be, discharge its duty to provide authorised sites for that purpose within its boundaries." 18. Later in the judgment the court returned to procedural safeguards to give effect to those matters of principle, and set out the following procedural and other matters. I omit some points that are relevant to Traveller cases and which have no counterpart in this case, and adjust others by omitting specific Traveller references and by making the wording applicable to the present (and similar) cases. i) Any applicant for an injunction against newcomers must satisfy the court by detailed evidence that there is a compelling justification for the order sought. There must be a strong possibility that a tort is to be committed and that that will cause real harm. The threat must be real and imminent. See paragraphs 188 and 218. "Imminent" in this context means "not premature" – Hooper v Rogers[1975] Ch 43 at 49E. ii) The applicant must show that all reasonable alternatives to an injunction have been exhausted, including negotiation – paragraph 189. iii) It must be demonstrated that the claimant has taken all other appropriate steps to control the wrong complained of – paragraph 189. iv) If byelaws are available to control the behaviour complained of then consideration must be given to them as a relevant means of control in place of an injunction. However, the court seemed to consider that in an appropriate case it should be recognised that byelaws may not be an adequate means of control. See paragraphs 216 and 217. v) There is a vital duty of full disclosure on the applicant, extending to "full disclosure of all facts, matters and arguments of which, after reasonable research, it is aware or could with reasonable diligence ascertain and which might affect the decision of the court whether to grant, maintain or discharge the order in issue, or the terms of the order it is prepared to make or maintain. This is a continuing obligation on any local authority seeking or securing such an order, and it is one it must fulfil having regard to the one-sided nature of the application and the substance of the relief sought. Where relevant information is discovered after the making of the order the local authority may have to put the matter back before the court on a further application." – paragraph 219. Although this is couched in terms of the local authority's obligations, that is because that was the party seeking the injunction in that case. In my view it plainly applies to any claimant seeking a newcomer injunction. It is a duty derived from normal without notice applications, of which a claim against newcomers is, by definition, one. vi) The court made it clear that the evidence must therefore err on the side of caution, and the court, not the applicant should be the judge of relevance – paragraph 220. vii) "The actual or intended respondents to the application must be identified as precisely as possible." – paragraph 221. viii) The injunction must spell out clearly, and in everyday terms, the full extent of the acts it prohibits, and should extend no further than the minimum necessary to achieve its proper purpose – paragraph 222. ix) There must be strict temporal and territorial limits – paragraph 225. The court doubted if more than a year would be justified in Traveller cases – paragraph 125 again. In my view that particular period does not necessarily apply in all cases, or in the present one, because they do not involve local authorities and Travellers. x) Injunctions of this kind should be reviewed periodically – paragraph 225. "This will give all parties an opportunity to make full and complete disclosure to the court, supported by appropriate evidence, as to how effective the order has been; whether any reasons or grounds for its discharge have emerged; whether there is any proper justification for its continuance; and whether and on what basis a further order ought to be made." xi) Where possible, the claimant must take reasonable steps to draw the application to the attention of those likely to be affected – paragraph 226. xii) Effective notice of the order must be given, and the court must disclose to the court all steps intended to achieve that – paragraphs 230ff. xiii) The order must contain a generous liberty to apply – paragraph 232. xiv) The court will need to consider whether a cross-undertaking in damages is appropriate even though the application is not technically one for an interim injunction where such undertakings are generally required. 19. The court recognised that not all the general requirements laid down will be applicable in protester, as opposed to Traveller, cases. I have borne that in mind, and have, as I have indicated, omitted reference to some of the matters which do not seem to me to be likely to apply in protester cases.”