Shell UK Limited v Persons Unknown & Ors [2024] EWHC 3130 (KB)

“Each Party shall ensure that persons exercising their rights in conformity with the provisions of this Convention shall not be penalized, persecuted or harassed in any way for their involvement.”

“Free speech includes not only the inoffensive but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative provided it does not tend to provoke violence. Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having.”

“1. Anyone interested in the future of our planet is aware by now of the impact on its climate of burning fossil fuels—chiefly oil, coal and gas. When fossil fuels are burnt, they release carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse gases”—so called because they act like a greenhouse in the earth’s atmosphere, trapping the sun’s heat and causing global surface temperatures to rise. According to the United Nations Environment Programme (“UNEP”) Production Gap Report 2023, p 3, close to 90% of global carbon dioxide emissions stem from burning fossil fuels. 2. The whole purpose of extracting fossil fuels is to make hydrocarbons available for combustion. It can therefore be said with virtual certainty that, once oil has been extracted from the ground, the carbon contained within it will sooner or later be released into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide and so will contribute to global warming. This is true even if only the net increase in greenhouse gas emissions is considered. Leaving oil in the ground in one place does not result in a corresponding increase in production elsewhere: see UNEP’s 2019 Production Gap Report, p 50, which reported, based on studies using elasticities of supply and demand from the economics literature, that each barrel of oil left undeveloped in one region will lead to 0.2 to 0.6 barrels not consumed globally over the longer term.”

“On 10 – 12 January 2024, I made my first visit to the United Kingdom since I was elected as UN Special Rapporteur on Environmental Defenders under the Aarhus Convention in June 2022. During my visit I met with government officials and with environmental defenders, including NGOs, climate activists and lawyers. I am issuing this statement in the light of the extremely worrying information I received in the course of these meetings regarding the increasingly severe crackdowns on environmental defenders in the United Kingdom, including in relation to the exercise of the right to peaceful protest. These developments are a matter of concern for any member of the public in the UK who may wish to take action for the climate or environmental protection. The right to peaceful protest is a basic human right. It is also an essential part of a healthy democracy. Protests, which aim to express dissent and to draw attention to a particular issue, are by their nature disruptive. The fact that they cause disruption or involve civil disobedience do not mean they are not peaceful. As the UN Human Rights Committee has made clear, States have a duty to facilitate the right to protest, and private entities and broader society may be expected to accept some level of disruption as a result of the exercise of this right. During my visit, however, I learned that, in the UK, peaceful protesters are being prosecuted and convicted under the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, for the criminal offence of “public nuisance”, which is punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment. I was also informed that the Public Order Act 2023 is being used to further criminalize peaceful protest. In December 2023, a peaceful climate protester who took part for approximately 30 minutes in a slow march on a public road was sentenced to six months imprisonment under the 2023 law. … In addition to the new criminal offences, I am deeply troubled at the use of civil injunctions to ban protest in certain areas, including on public roadways. Anyone who breaches these injunctions is liable for up to 2 years imprisonment and an unlimited fine. Even persons who have been named on one of these injunctions without first being informed about it – which, to date, has largely been the case – can be held liable for the legal costs incurred to obtain the injunction and face an unlimited fine and imprisonment for breaching it. The fact that a significant number of environmental defenders are currently facing both a criminal trial and civil injunction proceedings for their involvement in a climate protest on a UK public road or motorway, and hence are being punished twice for the same action, is also a matter of grave concern to me. As a final note, during my visit, UK environmental defenders told me that, despite the personal risks they face, they will continue to protest for urgent and effective action to address climate change. For them, the threat of climate change and its devastating impacts are far too serious and significant not to continue raising their voice, even when faced with imprisonment. We are in the midst of a triple planetary crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution. Environmental defenders are acting for the benefit of us all. It is therefore imperative that we ensure that they are protected. While the gravity of the information I received during my visit leads me to issue the present statement to express my concerns without delay, I will continue to look more deeply into each of the issues raised during my visit and in the formal complaints submitted to my mandate. In this regard, I also look forward to engaging in a constructive dialogue with the Government of the United Kingdom in order to ensure that members of the public in the UK seeking to protect the environment are not subject to persecution, penalization or harassment for doing so. 23 January 2024”

“A court should be inherently cautious about granting injunctions against unknown persons since the reach of such an injunction is necessarily difficult to assess in advance.”

“a court should always be cautious when considering granting injunctions against persons unknown.”

"... a judgment is not a summing-up in which every possible relevant piece of evidence must be mentioned."

“The Claimants have not sought orders which stop protesters from undertaking peaceful protests whether near the Shell Sites or otherwise. That remains the case. The Claimants’ concern continues to be the need to reinforce its proprietary rights and to mitigate the serious health, safety and wellbeing risks (to the Claimants’ employees, contractors, visitors and indeed protesters themselves) posed by the kind of unlawful actions and activities which prompted the Claimants to seek injunctive relief back in April 2022.”

“18. Petrol is highly flammable. Ignition can occur not just where an ignition source is brought into contact with the fuel itself, but also where there is a spark (for example from static electricity or the use of a device powered by electricity) in the vicinity of invisible vapour in the surrounding atmosphere. Such vapour does not disperse easily and can travel long distances. There is therefore close regulation … 19. The use of mobile telephones on the forecourt (outside a vehicle) is prohibited for that reason. The evidence shows that at the protests on 28 April 2022 protesters used mobile phones on the forecourts to photograph and film their activities. Further, as regards the use of hammers to damage pumps, Mr Austin says: “Breaking the pump screens with any implement could cause a spark and in turn potentially harm anyone in the vicinity. The severity of any vapour cloud ignition could be catastrophic and cause multiple fatalities. Unfortunately, Shell Group has tragically lost several service station employees in Pakistan in the last year when vapour clouds have been ignited during routine operations.”

“illustrate[d] the continuing ability of equity to innovate both in respect of orders designed to protect and enhance the administration of justice … [and] in respect of orders designed to protect substantive rights.”

“In different cases, differing phrases have been used in describing circumstances in which mandatory injunctions and quia timet injunctions will be granted. In truth, it seems to me that the degree of probability of future injury is not an absolute standard: what is to be aimed at is justice between the parties, having regard to all the relevant circumstances.” circumstances.”

“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.”

“With respect, I confess to some doubts about whether the two questions which he [Marcus Smith J in Vastint Leeds BV v Persons Unknown [2018] EWHC 2456 (Ch)] identified are part of a “test” or a “two stage” test. To my mind they are questions which the Court should consider in applying the test under section 37 Senior Courts Act 1981, namely what is “just and convenient” but they are not threshold tests.”

“There is no fixed or ‘absolute’ standard for measuring the degree of apprehension of a wrong which must be shown in order to justify quia timet relief. The graver the likely consequences, and the risk of wrongdoing the more the court will be reluctant to consider the application as ‘premature’. But there must be at least some real risk of an actionable wrong.”

“(1) The “persons unknown” defendants in the claim form are, by definition, people who have not been identified at the time of the commencement of the proceedings. If they are known and have been identified, they must be joined as individual defendants to the proceedings. The “persons unknown” defendants must be people who have not been identified but are capable of being identified and served with the proceedings, if necessary by alternative service such as can reasonably be expected to bring the proceedings to their attention. In principle, such persons include both anonymous defendants who are identifiable at the time the proceedings commence but whose names are unknown and also Newcomers, that is to say people who in the future will join the protest and fall within the description of the “persons unknown”. (2) The “persons unknown” must be defined in the originating process by reference to their conduct which is alleged to be unlawful. (3) Interim injunctive relief may only be granted if there is a sufficiently real and imminent risk of a tort being committed to justify quia timet relief. (4) As in the case of the originating process itself, the defendants subject to the interim injunction must be individually named if known and identified or, if not and described as “persons unknown”, must be capable of being identified and served with the order, if necessary by alternative service, the method of which must be set out in the order. (5) The prohibited acts must correspond to the threatened tort. They may include lawful conduct if, and only to the extent that, there is no other proportionate means of protecting the claimant's rights. (6) The terms of the injunction must be sufficiently clear and precise as to enable persons potentially affected to know what they must not do. The prohibited acts must not, therefore, be described in terms of a legal cause of action, such as trespass or harassment or nuisance. They may be defined by reference to the defendant's intention if that is strictly necessary to correspond to the threatened tort and done in nontechnical language which a defendant is capable of understanding and the intention is capable of proof without undue complexity. It is better practice, however, to formulate the injunction without reference to intention if the prohibited tortious act can be described in ordinary language without doing so. (7) The interim injunction should have clear geographical and temporal limits. It must be time limited because it is an interim and not a final injunction. We shall elaborate this point when addressing Canada Goose's application for a final injunction on its summary judgment application.”

“in summary judgment applications for a final injunction against unknown persons (“PUs”) or newcomers, who are protesters of some sort, the following 13 guidelines and rules must be met for the injunction to be granted. These have been imposed because a final injunction against PUs is a nuclear option in civil law akin to a temporary piece of legislation affecting all citizens in England and Wales for the future so must be used only with due safeguards in place.”

"9. The following general principles are well-settled, and uncontroversial on this appeal. (1) Peaceful protest falls within the scope of the fundamental rights of free speech and freedom of assembly guaranteed by Articles 10(1) and 11(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Interferences with those rights can only be justified if they are necessary in a democratic society and proportionate in pursuit of one of the legitimate aims specified in Articles 10(2) and 11(2). Authoritative statements on these topics can be found in Tabernacle v Secretary of State for Defence [2009] EWCA Civ 23 [43] (Laws LJ) and City of London v Samede [2012] EWCA Civ 160 [2012] 2 All ER 1039, reflecting the Strasbourg jurisprudence. (2) But the right to property is also a Convention right, protected by Article 1 of the First Protocol ('A1P1'). In a democratic society, the protection of property rights is a legitimate aim, which may justify interference with the rights guaranteed by Article 10 and 11. Trespass is an interference with A1P1 rights, which in turn requires justification. In a democratic society, Articles 10 and 11 cannot normally justify a person in trespassing on land of which another has the right to possession, just because the defendant wishes to do so for the purposes of protest against government policy. Interference by trespass will rarely be a necessary and proportionate way of pursuing the right to make such a protest."

“In relation to defences to trespass, genuine and bona fide concerns on the part of the protesters about HS2 or the proposed HS2 Scheme works do not amount to a defence, and the Court should be slow to spend significant time entertaining these: Samede, [63].”

“The second type of wrong which the Injunction sought to prevent was unlawful interference with the claimants’ freedom to come and go to and from their land. An owner of land adjoining a public highway has a right of access to the highway and a person who interferes with this right commits the tort of private nuisance. In addition, it is a public nuisance to obstruct or hinder free passage along a public highway and an owner of land specially affected by such a nuisance can sue in respect of it, if the obstruction of the highway causes them inconvenience, delay or other damage which is substantial and appreciably greater in degree than any suffered by the general public: see Clerk & Lindsell on Torts, 22nd ed (2017), para 20–181.”

“29. For the purposes of the present case, it is not necessary to decide whether a breach of statutory duty can found a claim for conspiracy to injure, or whether every (other) tort can do so. It is only necessary to decide whether the claimant has established a serious issue to be tried as to whether the torts that are here in play may suffice as the unlawful act necessary to found a claim for conspiracy to injure. Those torts involve interference with rights in land and goods where those rights are being exercised for the benefit of the claimant (where the petrol station is being operated under the claimant’s brand, selling the claimant’s fuel). Recognising the torts as capable of supporting a claim in conspiracy to injure does not undermine or undercut the rationale for those torts. It would be anomalous if a breach of contract (where the existence of the cause of action is dependent on the choice of the contracting parties) could support a claim for conspiracy to injure, but a claim for trespass could not do so. Likewise, it would be anomalous if trespass to goods did not suffice given that criminal damage does. I am therefore satisfied that the claimant has established a serious issue to be tried in respect of a relevant unlawful act.”

“The intention of the defendants’ unlawful activities is plain from their conduct and from the published statements on the websites of the protest groups: it is to disrupt the sale of fuel in order to draw attention to the contribution that fossil fuels make to climate change. They are not solitary activities but are protests involving numbers of activists acting in concert. They therefore apparently undertake their protest activities in agreement with one another. Loss is occasioned because the petrol stations are unable to sell the claimant’s fuel.”

“in Cuadrilla, the prohibitions were made out on the facts from claims in private nuisance and at para 81 the court described the prohibition corresponding to unlawful means conspiracy as “a different matter” on which Cuadrilla did not need to rely. However, as Ms Stacey highlighted, the discharge of the injunction based on conspiracy by the Court of Appeal in Ineos involved materially different facts, namely, a challenge to an injunction sought before any offending conduct had taken place; and terms which were impermissibly wide. In Cuadrilla at para 47 the Court of Appeal noted that the fact that the injunction had been made before any alleged unlawful interference with the claimant's activities had occurred was “important in understanding the decision” and I agree. In contrast, the injunction granted by Johnson J was based on past conduct having already occurred and was suitably narrow in focus.”

“2.4 Each of the Injunction Orders have been carefully considered and drawn so as to ensure that they are not too wide and only prohibit activity which would be clearly unlawful. 2.6 The Injunction Orders have been obeyed and have acted as an effective deterrent against unlawful protest activity. They continue to have that deterrent effect and ensure that damage and harm is avoided.”

“it is necessary to ask the counterfactual question: assuming no quia timet injunction, but an infringement of the claimant’s rights, how effective will amore-or-less immediate interim injunction plus damages in due course be as a remedy for that infringement? Essentially, the question is how easily the harm of the infringement can be undone by an ex post rather than an ex ante intervention, but the following other factors are material: (a) The gravity of the anticipated harm. It seems to me that if some of the consequences of an infringement are potentially very serious and incapable of ex post remedy, albeit only one of many types of harm capable of occurring, the seriousness of these irremediable harms is a factor that must be borne in mind.” (a) The gravity of the anticipated harm. It seems to me that if some of the consequences of an infringement are potentially very serious and incapable of ex post remedy, albeit only one of many types of harm capable of occurring, the seriousness of these irremediable harms is a factor that must be borne in mind.”

“There have been 63 separate protests at Shell Tower since the April renewal hearing. Apart from three incidents in June 2023 when protesters accessed the entrance to the Tower, these appear, I say no more, to have been lawful protests. I pause to observe that this is also of significance as it gives credence to the claimants' repeated assertion that it does not seek to prevent protesters from undertaking lawful peaceful protests, whether or not such protests arise near to its premises. It also highlights how it is possible to protest against the use of fossil fuels without infringing the rights of the claimants or others.”

“the Protest Groups had made comments reiterating that this is “an indefinite campaign of civil resistance” and (in March 2024) that “non violent civil resistant to a harmful state will continue with coordinated radical actions.”

“it appears that the effect of the various injunctions which have been granted in this case and others has been to prevent or deter them from taking the steps prohibited by the orders of the court although, of course, not invariably so. If, therefore, an injunction is refused in the present case the overwhelming likelihood is that protests of the sort which were seen in 2021/2022 will resume.”

“30. There do not appear to have been any further unlawful protest incidents at the Haven. However, the evidence shows a significant number of incidents in relation to oil refinery sites between August 2022 and February 2023. These included protest action at a number of oil refineries located in Kingsbury. The main road used to access the site was closed as a result of protesters making the road unsafe, by digging and occupying a tunnel underneath it, access roads were also blocked by protesters performing a sit-down roadblock. Similar activity occurred at the Gray's oil terminal in West Thurrock in August/ September 2022. On 28 August 2022 eight people were arrested after protesters blocked an oil tanker in the vicinity of the Gray's terminal, climbing on top of it and deflating its tyres. On 14 September 2022 around fifty protesters acted in breach of the North Warwickshire local authority injunction in relation to the Kingsbury site.”

“(i) the incidents described demonstrate a clear nationwide targeting of members of the wider Shell group of companies and its business operations since April/May 2022; (ii) such demonstrations will continue for the foreseeable future; and (iii) the injunctions need to be extended as they provide a strong deterrent effect and mitigate against the risk of harm which unlawful activities at the sites would otherwise give rise to. Unlawful activity at the sites presents an unacceptable risk of continuing and significant danger to the health and safety of staff, contractors, the general public and other persons visiting them.”

“18 Johnson J was provided with witness statements from Benjamin Austin, the claimant's health, safety and security manager, dated 3 and 10 May 2022. In his judgment, he explained that, on 28 April 2022, there were protests at two petrol stations (one of which was a Shell petrol station) on the M25, at Clacket Lane and Cobham. Entrances to the forecourts were blocked. The display screens of fuel pumps were smashed with hammers and obscured with spray paint. The kiosks were “sabotaged … to stop the flow of petrol”

“21. Aside from the physical damage that has been caused at the petrol stations, and the direct financial impact on the claimant (from lost sales), these types of protest give rise to additional potential risks. Petrol is highly flammable. Ignition can occur not just where an ignition source is brought into contact with the fuel itself, but also where there is a spark (for example from static electricity or the use of a device powered by electricity) in the vicinity of invisible vapour in the surrounding atmosphere. Such vapour does not disperse easily and can travel long distances. There is therefore close regulation, including by the Dangerous Substances and Explosives Atmosphere Regulations 2002, the Highway Code, Health and Safety Executive guidance on “Storing petrol safely” and “Dispensing petrol as a fuel: health and safety guidance for employees”, and non-statutory guidance, “Petrol Filling Stations – Guidance on Managing the Risks of Fire and Explosions.” “22. The use of mobile telephones on the forecourt (outside a vehicle) is prohibited for that reason (see annex 6 to the Highway Code: “Never smoke, or use a mobile phone, on the forecourt of petrol stations as these are major fire risks and could cause an explosion.”). The evidence shows that at the protests on 28 April 2022 protesters used mobile phones on the forecourts to photograph and film their activities. Further, as regards the use of hammers to damage pumps, Mr Austin says: “Breaking the pump screens with any implement could cause a spark and in turn potentially harm anyone in the vicinity. The severity of any vapour cloud ignition could be catastrophic and cause multiple fatalities. Unfortunately, Shell Group has tragically lost several service station employees in Pakistan in the last year when vapour clouds have been ignited during routine operations.”

“Never smoke, or use a mobile phone, on the forecourt of petrol stations as these are major fire risks and could cause an explosion.”). The evidence shows that at the protests on 28 April 2022 protesters used mobile phones on the forecourts to photograph and film their activities. Further, as regards the use of hammers to damage pumps, Mr Austin says: “Breaking the pump screens with any implement could cause a spark and in turn potentially harm anyone in the vicinity. The severity of any vapour cloud ignition could be catastrophic and cause multiple fatalities. Unfortunately, Shell Group has tragically lost several service station employees in Pakistan in the last year when vapour clouds have been ignited during routine operations.”

“noted the evidence that the campaign orchestrated by the groups in question looked set to continue and cited JSO's statement on its website that the disruption would continue “until the government makes a statement that it will end new oil and gas projects in the UK: para 16.”

“I trained as a social worker from 2009-2011. Since 2012 I have worked in mental health, sometimes as a support worker and other times at more senior levels, as a care co-ordinator. I am currently job free. I have recently been volunteering with food cycle, cooking 3 course community meals with waste food. I have a work contract starting on 1st November working in a mental health setting, with people who have been street homeless for a long time. I care deeply for others and look for ways to support fellow human beings and the earth, be it in my paid work, with family and friends, neighbours, or volunteering. For 3 months of this year I have volunteered on organic farms in the UK. We do not agree that this injunction is necessary. We believe that Shell should not be protected from lawful protest. We have not yet faced criminal trial for the acts that led to our inclusion on this injunction, so it remains to be seen whether the protest will be judged as lawful. We believe our actions have to date, been entirely within the law as it stood on 24.08.22. Since then the Government has, after much lobbying from Fossil Fuel Companies, passed even stronger laws protecting companies such as Shell. For clarity, I am asking for the Shell Petrol Station injunction to be discontinued. Events of August 24th 2022 On that day, I attended Cobham Service Station with other supporters of the Just Stop Oil campaign. I walked towards the entrance of the forecourt and sat down on the ground. There were 5 others who sat down too. There was a banner that read Just Stop Oil. The entrance to the forecourt was blocked. Cars continued to leave the petrol station via the exit road. When asked to move I continued to stay seated on the ground. I had my back to the petrol pumps. I am aware that there was damage caused to 2 petrol pump screens by one or two other people. I sat in the entrance of the Shell Petrol station, as an act of protest, to demand that the government stop issuing new licences for the discovery, development and production of new oil and gas in the UK. I also took this action to get this message out to Shell and to the public, who were there on the day, and other members of the public and the government via the media. To raise the alarm that we are in a climate emergency and we have to act like it. I put my body on the line and 2 petrol pump screens were decommissioned, to temporarily pause the flow of new petrol into some cars for a limited time. By jolting the status quo, I hoped that this more embodied message, would get through to some more people. Because we all need to be doing more, every day, at all times, to reduce our harmful impact on the climate and to encourage others to do so as well. I was arrested for causing a public nuisance, and was taken to Staines police station. I pleaded not guilty at the first appearance at Guildford Crown Court. I have been released on unconditional bail for this matter and the trial is currently listed for 11 August 2025 [now at Winchester Crown Court]. My spiritual faith, beliefs and views regarding climate change are set out in my witness statement. These views are sincerely held, reflecting those of many citizens who are concerned about climate change and the role of fossil fuels in perpetuating further man-made global warming. The health and safety concerns of potential future actions at Shell petrol stations has been discussed in evidence. I too take this point very seriously. I agree that a protest should not be allowed that causes physical harm to staff, customers, passers by and protesters. I hold the belief that if those that run Shell fully understood the part that they were playing in the climate crisis, in the deepest part of their heart and sole [sic], they would have consented to the damage having been caused the pumps and the disruption to the sale of their fuel. Since the injunction was made the law relating to protest has changed significantly, offering greater protection to the fossil fuel industry. For instance, s.7 Public Order Act 2023 means that people can be arrested almost immediately after the protest begins and they will face up to a year in prison. I do not understand why there is any need for the injunction to continue to exist in addition to these draconian laws. Shell requested the interim injunction when these new laws were not yet in force. I propose that the criminal laws of this country are protection enough for Shell to be able to continue to effectively and safely sell petrol to the public. Who can say whether it is the injunction, or the criminal laws, or something else that has meant that there have been no more actions by environmental groups on any petrol station of any brand in England and Wales since August 2022. The evidence since August 2022 given by the claimant talks about other types of actions on other sites in the UK, that are not petrol stations. [A]nalysis from Carbon Majors Database, has proposed that just 57 oil, gas and cement producers are directly linked to 80% of the world’s global fossil fuel CO2 emissions since the 2016 Paris Agreement. Shell has been named as one of these. We are in a climate emergency. Let us not be a country that continues to use injunctions to create new laws that are overly harsh for environmental defenders and protect big oil companies. The scientific consensus on the climate emergency could not be clearer. We are in a climate crisis, driven by rising temperatures and extreme weather. An average of over 1.5C warming would be catastrophic for humanity. The International Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) reports state that we are already overshooting the targets of liveability. We cannot keep burning fossil fuels if we are to have any chance of a liveable future. I feel that it is my calling to do all I can to reduce the negative impact of climate change at this time. I feel that part of this is to invite others to question what they can do, within their sphere of influence. I understand that for each of us this may be different. In 2022 I became a supporter of Just Stop Oil in order to demand that the government stop issuing licences for the exploration, discovery and development of new oil and gas projects in the UK. For me, this demand felt necessary, clear and reasonable. I feel so privileged to be saying this from a place where I have a home, enough food and I am well. The reality for many today, especially in the global south, is that their lives are being ripped apart due to fires, floods, famine caused by climate change. It is us in the global north who have played the biggest part in climate change. I feel it is our responsibility to do all we can as individuals, and to ask those, with different spheres of influence, to do what they can too. This is why I protested on that day, and why I am defending myself at this trial. Since that day I have been arrested a further five times, each time for participating in protests as a supporter of Just Stop Oil. The demand to the government, on each of these occasions was to stop issuing new oil and gas licences: • On August 26 2022 I was arrested for blocking the entrance to a petrol station forecourt in London. • On 8 October 2022 I was arrested for sitting in a road in London , causing a disruption to traffic. For this I was charged, pleaded not guilty to wilful obstruction of the highway, and later the case was dropped. • On 21 October 2022, I was arrested for sitting in a road in London, causing a disruption to traffic. For this I was found guilty of Wilful Obstruction of the Highway. I was sentenced to £200 court costs £26 surcharge and conditional discharge of 12 months. • On 10 July 2023, I was arrested for continuing to walk slowly down a road in London, causing traffic to move more slowly. I was arrested for breaching s.12. I was later found guilty for breaching s.12. I was sentenced to £120 court costs and £120 fine. I was also given £120 fine for the above action, due to the conditional discharge. • On 10 November 2023 I was arrested for walking slowly down a London road. I was later found guilty of Wilful Obstruction of the Highway and sentenced to £348 costs, £200 fine, £80 surcharge.”

“We do not agree that this injunction is necessary. We believe that Shell should not be protected from lawful protest. On 24th August 2022 – Cobham Service Station – I was arrested for public nuisance and possession of articles with the intent to cause or damage property. On that day, I attended Cobham Service Station with other protesters from JSO group. Initially my plan was to cause damage to the petrol pumps of the service station with two other protesters, whilst five other protesters blocked the entrance to the station forecourt and glued themselves to the ground. Whilst I was walking towards the petrol pumps, I changed my mind about causing damage to the petrol pumps and I changed course to join the other protesters at the entrance to the forecourt. I sat down with them and glued myself to the ground. I was arrested. The interim injunction and its extension are “immensely troubling for me because it curtails my right to peacefully protest outside petrochemical facilities, offices and retail facilities are which are owned and operated by Shell. On 26 August 2022, Shell’s Petrol Stations at Acton Park and Acton Vale were subjected to action by protesters that went well beyond peaceful protest. As part of what Just Stop Oil described as a week-long “series of actions disrupting oil terminals and petrol stations in support of [Just Stop Oil’s] demand that the UK government end new oil and gas projects in the UK”, individuals once again blocked the entrance to the petrol station and caused damage to 10 fuel pumps in total across the two Shell Petrol Stations. I would ask that you consider if the cost is actually a big or small number. I am sure that the numbers are big for those Shell trading businesses actually impacted but at the highest level in terms of a business making 19.5 billion dollars profit in the past year, it is very, very small. Whether you want to regard it as being large or small is down to you. For me it is very small, and fits exactly for the requirement protest to be proportional. All protests that gave rise to this injunction where at locations directly connected with the harm being caused by the ongoing operations of Shell. There is no evidence that I will act in breach of the Claimant’s rights in the future such that “imminent and real risk of harm test” for an anticipatory injunction is met. Another way to look at this might be that this injunction shields Shell from the consequences of public discontent at the decisions made at senior levels within the company. I am a Quaker. I integrate my faith in everything I do in my life but particularly through my activism. Quakerism calls for Quakers to live by our values and actively participate in the upholding of these values where we see it is necessary. Activism is the practical side of my faith. It is interconnected. Quakerism is not about heaven or an afterlife, it is about the world we are in now. That’s why so many Quakers are involved in activism about climate change. Human induced climate change is real. It is happening now. My Environmental Science degree tells me that there is cause and effect in the laws of physics. If you increase CO2 in the atmosphere the temperature has to increase. The products sold by fossil fuel companies such as Shell are one of the major causes of climate change. These companies know the risks their products pose. Their role is totally malign. They deny the impact, delay action, destroy lives and environments. They take no responsibility for the output of their products, at all times seeking to maximise their sales which is a death sentence to many people and the planet. In general, business is unable to see past profit. Generally, if they think taking action to reduce their impact on climate change will undermine their profits they prefer to continue with business as usual and where necessary green wash past any issues. This is why it is important to me to protest; my faith requires me to take action to alert people to the dangers of climate change and put pressure on the Government and fossil fuel companies to change their ways, while the Government and big business are failing to do so.”

“Shell have abandoned all the promises that they were going to be become the greenest energy company in the world. Shell say they are going to drill a new gas field in the North Sea, so ‘how is that green ambition going?’.”

“Maximum sentences are artificial as rarely used. Instead, the real change is the new police powers. The police only have to determine the action is ‘more than minor’ disruption [through obstruction] and they do that really quickly. The change enables the police to break up the protests more quickly and it is not the sentences that ‘protects Shell’.”

“This is a very serious issue. But Shell is putting this CO2 into the atmosphere causing thousands and millions of deaths, even hundreds of millions of deaths, not in the future, but in the next few years, probably in my lifetime and certainly the lifetime of my children. It is so serious we must look in the mirror and take action.”

“it would have been easy for Defendants to give assurances or evidence to the court that there was no intention to carry out direct action at the various sites, but a decision was taken not to do so. As I have indicated in other cases, this provides an insight into the mindset of those who would, unless restrained, engage in unlawful activities with the aim of halting the Claimants’ business in fossil fuels.”

“The claimants liaise regularly with the police, whose intelligence indicates that there continues to be an ongoing threat; that the protest campaign is not over; and that protest groups will continue to attempt to put pressure on the Government to halt new investment in fossil fuels. It is apparent that JSO continues to have the ability to draw on a large group of protesters who are willing to be arrested; that they take action using a variety of tactics and target locations across the UK; and that they employ tactics that attract the media and public interest. Further, there is a high level of crossover between the individual protest groups, who appear to share disruptive tactics between them. His view was that activities of the sort described above would be likely to increase as a result of the Government's recent approval of the building of a new power station, the cost-of-living crisis and the likely increase in support for JSO given that environmental concerns affect the majority of the public.”

“Article 9 – Freedom of thought, conscience and religion 1 Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance. 2 Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”

“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.”

“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. This Article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State.”

“55. The injunction interferes with the defendants’ rights to assemble and express their opposition to the fossil fuel industry. 56. Unless such interference can be justified, it is incompatible with the defendants’ rights under articles 10 and 11 ECHR and may not therefore be granted (see sections 1 and 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998). Articles 10 and 11 ECHR are not absolute rights. Interferences with those rights can be justified where they are necessary and proportionate to the need to protect the claimant’s rights: articles 10(2) and 11(2) ECHR. Proportionality is assessed by considering if (i) the aim is sufficiently important to justify interference with a fundamental right, (ii) there is a rational connection between the means chosen and the aim in view, (iii) there is no less intrusive measure which could achieve that aim, and (iv) a fair balance has been struck between the rights of the defendants and the general interest of the community, including the rights of others: DPP v Ziegler [2021] UKSC 23 [2022] AC 408 per Lord Sales JSC at [125].”

“It is necessary to determine (1) whether the objective of the measure is sufficiently important to justify the limitation of a protected right, (2) whether the measure is rationally connected to the objective, (3) whether a less intrusive measure could have been used without unacceptably compromising the achievement of the objective, and (4) whether, balancing the severity of the measure’s effects on the rights of the persons to whom it applies against the importance of the objective, to the extent that the measure will contribute to its achievement, the former outweighs the latter.”

“The defendants might say that there is an overwhelming global scientific consensus that the business in which the claimant is engaged is contributing to the climate crisis and is thereby putting the world at risk, and that the claimant’s interests pale into insignificance by comparison. This is not, however, “a particularly weighty factor: otherwise judges would find themselves according greater protection to views which they think important” – City of London v Samede [2012] EWCA Civ 160 [2012] 2 All ER 1039 per Lord Neuberger at [41]. It is not for the court, on this application, to adjudicate on the important underlying political and policy issues raised by these protests. It is for Parliament to determine whether legal restrictions should be imposed on the trade in fossil fuels. That is why the defendants’ actions are directed at securing a change in Government policy. The claimant is entitled to ask the court to uphold and enforce its legal rights, including its right to engage in a lawful business without tortious interference. Those rights are prescribed by law and their enforcement is necessary in a democratic society. The aim of the injunction is therefore sufficiently important to justify interferences with the defendants’ rights of assembly and expression: cf. Ineos Upstream v Persons Unknown [2017] EWHC 2945 per Morgan J at [105] and Cuadrilla per Leggatt LJ at [45] and [50].”

“the injunctions strike a fair balance between the Defendants’ rights to assemblyandexpressionandtheClaimants’rights:theyprotecttheClaimants’rightsinsofarasisnecessarytodosobutnotfurther; “the interferences with the Defendants’ rights of free assembly and expression caused by the injunctions are necessary for and proportionate to the need to protect the Claimants’ rights.”

“As for interference with the defendants' rights to free assembly and expression necessary for the proportionate need to protect the claimants' rights under Articles 10(2) and 11(2), read with section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act, it is right to note that all three of the injunctions interfere with the defendants' rights under Articles 10(1) and 11(1). However, such interference can be justified when it is necessary and proportionate to protect the claimants' rights. I adopt Hill J's reasoning and conclusions at paragraphs 179 to 180 in this regard.”

“22. Mr Laurie's submission is that the coming into force of the Public Order Act 2023 represents a material change, since the orders were made by Hill J, as sections 1, 2 and 7 create new offences. Sections 1 and 2 create the offences of locking-on and being equipped for locking-on; and section 7, interference with use or operation of key national infrastructure. 25 Mr Laurie's admirably brief submission was that in light of these new offences, the orders were no longer necessary. Put simply, fear of prosecution will prevent the unlawful activity which is prohibited by their terms. Where the criminal law provides that conduct will be an offence, with the potential for significant penalties, including imprisonment, the civil law does not need to provide additional protection. 26 No authorities have been cited to me in support of (or against) this proposition.”

“both the Fourth and Tenth Defendant in the Shell Petrol Station Proceedings were recently arrested under the Public Order Act. Pages 304-306 of Exhibit PE1. I am also aware that the Fifteenth Defendant was arrested after spraying a University of Leeds building with orange paint.”

“41. Miss Pinkerton extracted some quotes from the Just Stop Oil press releases including assertions that their campaign would be “indefinite” until the Government agreed to stop new fossil fuel projects in the UK and mentioning their supporters storming the pitch at Twickenham during the Gallagher Premiership Rugby final. Further press releases in June and July 2023 encouraging civil resistance against oil, gas and coal were published. In an open letter to the police unions dated 13th September 2023 Just Stop Oil stated they would be back on the streets from October the 29th for a resumption after their 13 week campaign between April and July 2023 which they asserted had already cost the Metropolitan Police more than £7.7 million and required the equivalent of an extra 23,500 officer shifts.”

“57 Purposes of sentencing: adults (1) This section applies where— (a) a court is dealing with an offender for an offence, and (b) the offender is aged 18 or over when convicted. (2) The court must have regard to the following purposes of sentencing— (a) the punishment of offenders, (b) the reduction of crime (including its reduction by deterrence), (c) the reform and rehabilitation of offenders, (d) the protection of the public, and (e) the making of reparation by offenders to persons affected by their offences.”

“Environmental issues are best handled with the participation of all concerned citizens, at the relevant level. At the national level, each individual shall have appropriate access to information concerning the environment that is held by public authorities, including information on hazardous materials and activities in their communities, and the opportunity to participate in decision-making processes. States shall facilitate and encourage public awareness and participation by making information widely available. Effective access to judicial and administrative proceedings, including redress and remedy, shall be provided.”

“progressive Governments increasingly recognize and understand that environmental decisions will only be sustainable if reached through transparent, participatory and accountable process. The Aarhus Convention provides Governments with standards to ensure that this happens.”

“makes clear that we have an obligation to protect and improve the environment for the benefit of present and future generations.”

“19. The Aarhus Convention was itself partly based on Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985, which introduced the EIA procedure within the European Economic Community (as it was then called). That Directive was amended after the Aarhus Convention came into force by Directive 2003/35/EC to implement obligations arising under the Aarhus Convention and was later codified in the EIA Directive. Recital (18) to the EIA Directive refers to the Aarhus Convention and recital (19) records that: ‘Among the objectives of the Aarhus Convention is the desire to guarantee rights of public participation in decision-making in environmental matters in order to contribute to the protection of the right to live in an environment which is adequate for personal health and wellbeing.’ 20. Obligations arising under the Aarhus Convention have been built into articles 6, 8 and 9 of the EIA Directive. Thus, article 6 imposes obligations on member states to inform the public early in the decision-making procedure of various matters, which include details of the arrangements made for public participation in the process; to make available to the public concerned the information gathered where an EIA is required; and to give the public concerned early and effective opportunities to express comments and opinions before the decision on the request for development consent is taken. The “public concerned” is defined in article 1(2)(e) as “the public affected or likely to be affected by, or having an interest in, the environmental decision-making procedures” required by the EIA Directive and specifically includes NGOs promoting environmental protection. Article 8 of the EIA Directive requires the results of such public consultation to be “duly taken into account” in the decision-making procedure; and article 9(1) provides that the public must be promptly informed of the decision taken and of “the main reasons and considerations on which the decision is based, including information about the public participation process”. 21. The rationale underpinning these public participation requirements is expressed in recital (16) to the EIA Directive: “Effective public participation in the taking of decisions enables the public to express, and the decision-maker to take account of, opinions and concerns which may be relevant to those decisions, thereby increasing the accountability and transparency of the decision-making process and contributing to public awareness of environmental issues and support for the decisions taken.”

“the critical importance of establishing and maintaining a safe environment that enables members of the public to exercise their rights in conformity with the Convention” and to ensure “due protection of environmental defenders.”

“the serious situation faced by environmental defenders, including, but not limited to, threats, violence, intimidation, surveillance, detention and even killings, as reported by States Members of the United Nations, and by intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations and other stakeholders”

“82 As an unincorporated international treaty, the UNCRC [United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child] is not part of the law of the United Kingdom (nor, it is scarcely necessary to add, are the comments on it of the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child). The spirit, if not the precise language of article 3.1 has been translated into our law in particular contexts through section 11(2) of the Children Act 2004 and section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009: ZH (Tanzania) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] 2 AC 166, para 23. The present case is not howeverconcerned with such a context. 83The UNCRC has also been taken into account by the European Court of Human Rights in the interpretation of the Convention, in accordance with article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. As the Grand Chamber stated in Demir v Turkey (2008) 48 EHRR 1272 [“Demir”], para 69, “the precise obligations that the substantive obligations of the Convention impose on contracting states may be interpreted, first, in the light of relevant international treaties that are applicable in the particular sphere”

“Article 6 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN DECISIONS ON SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES 1. Each Party: (a) Shall apply the provisions of this article with respect to decisions on whether to permit proposed activities listed in annex I”

“Annex I LIST OF ACTIVITIES REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 6, PARAGRAPH 1 (a) 1. 2. Energy sector:- Mineral oil and gas refineries; Installations for gasification and liquefaction”

“3. Each Party shall promote environmental education and environmental awareness among the public, especially on how to obtain access to information, to participate in decision-making and to obtain access to justice in environmental matters.”

“154. In my judgment the wording of all three injunctions is in clear and simple language, save for two caveats with respect to the petrol stations injunction: (i) some wording should be inserted before clauses 3.4-3.6 to reflect that the acts are only prohibited if they cause damage (such wording being clear on the face of the Tower and Haven injunctions but not on the petrol stations one); and (ii) clause 3.7 should be removed as it duplicates paragraph 4. 155. In respect of the petrol stations injunction, as Johnson J noted at [46], it is usually desirable that such terms should, so far as possible, be based on objective conduct rather than subjective intention. However, for the reasons he gives, the element of subjective intention in paragraph 2 (“with the intention of disrupting the sale or supply of fuel to or from a Shell Petrol Station”) is necessary because of the nature of the tort of conspiracy to injure and to avoid the language being wider than is necessary or proportionate (noting the sweet wrapper example he gave at [21]). 156. I do not accept Mr Simblet’s contention that the “encouragement” provisions are unduly vague: they are clearly defined as being linked with the underlying acts and are intended to ensure that the injunctions are effective. To the extent that they capture lawful activity, they are proportionate as explained under sub-issue (10) below.”

“153. Each injunction contains an order making clear that it is not intended to prohibit behaviour which is otherwise lawful. To the extent that it does, the same is a proportionate means of protecting the Claimant’s rights for the reasons given under sub-issue (10) below.”

“151. The acts prohibited in the petrol stations injunction reflect those in the petrol stations injunction necessarily amount to conduct that constitutes the tort of conspiracy to injure, provided that the injunction is read in full in the way described by Johnson J at [26 above]. This means that the concerns raised in Mr Simblet’s submission to the effect that clause 3.4 (“affixing any object or person”) would prohibit placing leaflets or signs on any objects on or in a Shell petrol station and his similar concerns about clauses 3.5 and 3.6 (“erecting any structure in, on or against any part of” or “painting or depositing or writing in any substance on any part of” a Shell petrol station) are to some degree mitigated by the fact that such activities are only prohibited by the injunction if they are (i) such that they damage the petrol station; (ii) done in agreement with others; and (iii) done with the intention of disrupting the sale or supply of fuel. These are similar to the “sweet wrapper” example given by Johnson J at [26] above: the prohibited acts in paragraph 3 need to be read in conjunction with the definition of Defendants. When that is done, it can be seen that they mirror the torts underlying the overarching tort of conspiracy to injure.”

“56. As for geographical and temporal limits, the extent of the Haven and Tower injunctions are made clear by the plans appended to them. In respect of the petrol stations injunctions, this matter was revised by Hill J, and again I am satisfied that the form of order is appropriate.”

“2.8 it is clear to me that there is still a very real risk that without the protection of the Injunction Orders, protest activity would very likely return to the levels of unlawful activity previously experienced. 2.9 For example, I am aware of an article in which Just Stop Oil were quoted saying “whilst governments are allowing oil corporations to run amok destroying our communities, the actions of individuals mean very little. Failure to defend the people they represent will mean Just Stop Oil supporters, along with citizens from Austria, Canada, Norway, the Netherlands and Switzerland will join in resistance this summer, if their own governments do not take a meaningful action.”

“Temporal limits - duration 75. I have carefully considered whether 5 years is an appropriate duration for this quasi- final injunction. The undertakings expire in August 2026 and I have thought carefully about whether the injunction should match that duration. However, in the light of the threats of some of the 4 Organisations on the longevity of their campaigns and the continued actions elsewhere in the UK, the express aim of causing financial waste to the police force and the Claimants and the total lack of engagement in dialogue with the Claimants throughout the proceedings, I do not consider it reasonable to put the Claimants to the further expense of re-issuing for a further injunction in 2 years 7 months' time. I have seen no evidence suggesting that those connected with the 4 organisations will abandon or tire of their desire for direct tortious action causing disruption, danger and economic damage with a view to forcing Government to cease or prevent oil exploration and extraction.”

“226We recognise that it would be impossible for a local authority to give effective notice to all newcomers of its intention to make an application for an injunction to prevent unauthorised encampments on its land. That is the basis on which we have proceeded. On the other hand, in the interests of procedural fairness, we consider that any local authority intending to make an application of this kind must take reasonable steps to draw the application to the attention of persons likely to be affected by the injunction sought or with some other genuine and proper interest in the application (see para 167(ii) above). This should be done in sufficient time before the application is heard to allow those persons (or those representing them or their interests) to make focused submissions as to whether it is appropriate for an injunction to be granted and, if it is, as to the terms and conditions of any such relief. 227Here the following further points may also be relevant. First, local authorities have now developed ways to give effective notice of the grant of such injunctions to those likely to be affected by them, and they do so by the use of notices attached to the land and in other ways as we describe in the next section of this judgment. These same methods, appropriately modified, could be used to give notice of the application itself. … 228 Secondly, we see merit in requiring any local authority making an application of this kind to explain to the court what steps it has taken to give notice of the application to persons likely to be affected by it or to have a proper interest in it, and of all responses it has received. 229 These are all matters for the judges hearing these applications to consider in light of the particular circumstances of the cases before them, and in this way to allow an appropriate practice to develop.”

“In considering whether injunctions of this type comply with the standards of procedural and substantive fairness and justice by which the courts direct themselves, it is the compliant (law-abiding) newcomer, not the contemptuous breaker of the injunction, who ought to be regarded as the paradigm in any process of evaluation. Courts grant injunctions on the assumption that they will generally be obeyed, not as stage one in a process intended to lead to committal for contempt: see para 129 above, and the cases there cited, with which we agree.”

“Public confidence in the legal system and in the rule of law would be undermined if the courts refused to enforce the law on the ground that defendants, who wished to establish the validity of beliefs sincerely and genuinely held, were entitled to rely on the public interest to justify wrongs to the property of others who did not share their point of view. It is extremely improbable that a reasonable man would regard the [necessity] defence proposed as an acceptable reason for the unauthorised presence of anyone, public official or fellow citizen, on his property or on the property of anyone else. On the other hand, the unavailability of public interest as a justification for trespass does not in any way curtail or prejudice the exercise by the defendants of their undoubted right in a democratic society to use to the full all lawful means at their disposal to achieve the[ir] aims and objects … Supporters can peacefully and effectively pursue those aims and gain publicity and public support for them in many different ways without the need to commit unlawful acts of trespass.”

“equity provides a remedy where the others available under the law are inadequate to vindicate or protect the rights in issue.”