“In Wolverhampton, the Supreme Court rejected our submissions as to the availability of persons unknown injunctions as a matter of principle, but our submissions may include relevant considerations for the Court in terms of criteria and the procedural safeguards for persons unknown injunctions in the protest context. In particular, the evidence of Mr Timms refers to our own experience of the serious chilling effect of these injunctions, in terms of their deterrence of lawful protest including lawful, peaceful, direct action protest. We would stress that the latter is a recognised and legitimate part of freedom of speech and assembly protected by the common law and Articles 10/11 ECHR.”
“Free the MBR Beagles” and “Camp Beagle”
“A clear picture emerges from the evidence, that the central complaint of the Claimants is the protestors’ activities when people (particularly employees of the First Claimant) enter or leave the Wyton Site. At these times, protestors, including the named Defendants, have surrounded and/or obstructed the vehicles. Their ability to drive off is not only impaired by the physical obstruction of the protestors, but also because placards have been used, on occasions, to obstruct the view that the driver of the vehicle has of the road and whether it is safe to pull out. These incidents have frequently led to confrontation between the protestors and those inside the vehicles, allegedly leaving them feeling harassed and intimidated.”
“The ‘Exclusion Zone’ is… for the purpose of the Wyton site, the area with black hatching at Annex 1 of this Order measuring 20 metres in length either side of the midpoint of the gate to the entrance of the Wyton site and extending out to the midpoint of the carriageway…”
“3. Any further contempt application against any person, not being a named Defendant in the proceedings, may only be brought by the Claimants with the permission of the Court. 4. An application for permission under Paragraph 3 above, must be made by Application Notice attaching the proposed contempt application and evidence in support. The Court will normally expect the Claimants to have notified the proposed Respondent in writing of the allegation(s) that s/he has breached the injunction order. Any response by the Respondent should be provided to the Court with the application to bring a contempt application. Unless the Court otherwise directs, any such application will be dealt with by the Court on the papers.”
“Pursuant toCPR Part 6.14 , 6.15, 6.26 and 6.27 the Claimants have permission to serve the Tenth Defendant, Persons Unknown, by the following alternative forms of service: (1) Affixing copies (as opposed to originals) of the Claim Form, the Injunction Application Notice, draft Injunction Order and this Order permitting alternative service, in a transparent envelope on the gates of the First and Third Claimants’ Land and in a prominent position on the grass verge at the front of the First and Third Claimant’s Land. (2) The documents shall be accompanied by a cover letter in the form set out in Annexure 2 explaining to Persons Unknown that they can access copies of (a) the Response Pack; (b) evidence in support of the Alternative Service and Injunction Applications; and (c) the skeleton argument and note of the hearing of the Alternative Service Application at the dedicated share file website at: [Dropbox link provided]” (3) The deemed date of service for the documents referred to in (1) to (3) above shall be two working days after service is completed in accordance with paragraphs (1) to (3) above. (a) the Response Pack; (b) evidence in support of the Alternative Service and Injunction Applications; and (c) the skeleton argument and note of the hearing of the Alternative Service Application at the dedicated share file website at: [Dropbox link provided]”
“… if the defendant place a part of his foot on the plaintiff’s land unlawfully, it is in law as much a trespass as if he had walked half a mile on it.”
“I very much doubt if in that passage McNair J was intending to hold that the plaintiff’s rights in the air space continued to an unlimited height or ‘ad coelum’ as [the plaintiff] submits. The point that the judge was considering was whether the sign was a trespass or a nuisance at the very low level at which it projected. This to my mind is clearly indicated by his reference to Winfield on Tort, 6th ed. (1954) in which the text reads, at p. 380: ‘it is submitted that trespass will be committed by [aircraft] to the air space if they fly so low as to come within the area of ordinary user.’ The author in that passage is careful to limit the trespass to the height at which it is contemplated an owner might be expected to make use of the air space as a natural incident of the user of his land. If, however, the judge was by his reference to theCivil Aviation Act 1949 and his disapproval of the views of Lord Ellenborough in Pickering -v- Rudd (1815) 4 Camp 219, indicating the opinion that the flight of an aircraft at whatever height constituted a trespass at common law, I must respectfully disagree. I do not wish to cast any doubts upon the correctness of the decision upon its own particular facts. It may be a sound and practical rule to regard any incursion into the air space at a height which may interfere with the ordinary user of the land as a trespass rather than a nuisance. Adjoining owners then know where they stand; they have no right to erect structures overhanging or passing over their neighbours’ land and there is no room for argument whether they are thereby causing damage or annoyance to their neighbours about which there may be much room for argument and uncertainty. But wholly different considerations arise when considering the passage of aircraft at a height which in no way affects the user of the land.”
“In none of these cases is there an authoritative pronouncement that ‘land’ means the whole of the space from the centre of the earth to the heavens: so sweeping, unscientific and unpractical doctrine is unlikely to appeal to the common law mind.”
“In Wandsworth Board of Works -v- United Telephone Co. Ltd.(1884) 13 QBD 904 Bowen LJ described the maxim, usque ad coelum, as a fanciful phrase, to which I would add that if applied literally it is a fanciful notion leading to the absurdity of a trespass at common law being committed by a satellite every time it passes over a suburban garden. The academic writers speak with one voice in rejecting the uncritical and literal application of the maxim... I accept their collective approach as correct. The problem is to balance the rights of an owner to enjoy the use of his land against the rights of the general public to take advantage of all that science now offers in the use of air space. This balance is in my judgment best struck in our present society by restricting the rights of an owner in the air space above his land to such height as is necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of his land and the structures upon it, and declaring that above that height he has no greater rights in the air space than any other member of the public.”
“… it is not suggested that by its mere presence in the air space it caused any interference with any use to which the plaintiff put or might wish to put his land. The plaintiff’s complaint is not that the aircraft interfered with the use of his land but that a photograph was taken from it. There is, however, no law against taking a photograph, and the mere taking of a photograph cannot turn an act which is not a trespass into the plaintiff’s air space into one that is a trespass.”
“… [Counsel for the plaintiff], however, conceded that he was unable to cite any principle of law or authority that would entitle Lord Bernstein to prevent someone taking a photograph of his property for an innocent purpose, provided they did not commit some other tort such as trespass or nuisance in doing so. It is therefore interesting to reflect what a sterile remedy Lord Bernstein would obtain if he was able to establish that mere infringement of the air space over his land was a trespass. He could prevent the defendants flying over his land to take another photograph, but he could not prevent the defendants taking the virtually identical photograph from the adjoining land provided they took care not to cross his boundary, and were taking it for an innocent as opposed to a criminal purpose.”
“… I [would not] wish this judgment to be understood as deciding that in no circumstances could a successful action be brought against an aerial photographer to restrain his activities. The present action is not founded in nuisance for no court would regard the taking of a single photograph as an actionable nuisance. But if the circumstances were such that a plaintiff was subjected to the harassment of constant surveillance of his house from the air, accompanied by the photographing of his every activity, I am far from saying that the court would not regard such a monstrous invasion of his privacy as an actionable nuisance for which they would give relief. However, that question does not fall for decision in this case and will be decided if and when it arises.”
“… 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 or his predecessors originally dedicated the highway or part of it and 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.”
“The right which [the claimants] here seek to exercise is a right which they enjoy in common with all other members of the public to use this highway. They have an individual interest which enables them to sue without joining the Attorney-General, in that they are persons who by reason of the neighbourhood of their own premises use this portion of the highway more than others. They have a special and individual interest in the public right to this portion of the highway, and they are entitled to sue without joining the Attorney-General because they sue in respect of that individual interest; but the right which they seek to exercise is not a private right, but a public right. A person who owns premises abutting on a highway enjoys as a private right the right of stepping from his own premises on to the highway, and if any obstruction be placed in his doorway, or gateway, or, if it be a river, at the edge of his wharf, so as to prevent him from obtaining access from his own premises to the highway, that obstruction would be an interference with a private right. But immediately that he has stepped on to the highway, and is using the highway, what he is using is not a private right, but a public right.”
“(1) If a person, without lawful authority or excuse, in any way wilfully obstructs the free passage along a highway he is guilty of an offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks or a fine or both…”
‘the public have the right to use the public highway for such reasonable and usual activities as are consistent with the general public’s primary right to use the highway for purposes of passage and repassage’
“Determination of the proportionality of an interference with ECHR rights is a fact-specific enquiry which requires the evaluation of the circumstances in the individual case”
“This was a civil action brought by the Attorney General on the relation of the Glamorgan County Council and the Pontardawe Rural District Council to restrain a nuisance by quarrying activities which were said to project stones and splinters into the neighbourhood, and cause dust and vibrations. It was argued for the company on appeal that there might have been a private nuisance affecting some of the residents, but not a public nuisance affecting all Her Majesty’s liege subjects living in the area. In his judgment Romer LJ reviewed the authorities in detail and concluded, at p.184: ‘I do not propose to attempt a more precise definition of a public nuisance than those which emerge from the textbooks and authorities to which I have referred. It is, however, clear, in my opinion, that any nuisance is “public” which materially affects the reasonable comfort and convenience of life of a class of Her Majesty’s subjects. The sphere of the nuisance may be described generally as “the neighbourhood”; but the question whether the local community within that sphere comprises a sufficient number of persons to constitute a class of the public is a question of fact in every case. It is not necessary, in my judgment, to prove that every member of the class has been injuriously affected; it is sufficient to show that a representative cross-section of the class has been so affected for an injunction to issue.’ Denning LJ agreed. He differentiated between public and private nuisance at p.190 on conventional grounds: ‘The classic statement of the difference is that a public nuisance affects Her Majesty’s subjects generally, whereas a private nuisance only affects particular individuals.’ He went on to say, at p.191: ‘that a public nuisance is a nuisance which is so widespread in its range or so indiscriminate in its effect that it would not be reasonable to expect one person to take proceedings on his own responsibility to put a stop to it, but that it should be taken on the responsibility of the community at large.’” ‘I do not propose to attempt a more precise definition of a public nuisance than those which emerge from the textbooks and authorities to which I have referred. It is, however, clear, in my opinion, that any nuisance is “public” which materially affects the reasonable comfort and convenience of life of a class of Her Majesty’s subjects. The sphere of the nuisance may be described generally as “the neighbourhood”; but the question whether the local community within that sphere comprises a sufficient number of persons to constitute a class of the public is a question of fact in every case. It is not necessary, in my judgment, to prove that every member of the class has been injuriously affected; it is sufficient to show that a representative cross-section of the class has been so affected for an injunction to issue.’ ‘that a public nuisance is a nuisance which is so widespread in its range or so indiscriminate in its effect that it would not be reasonable to expect one person to take proceedings on his own responsibility to put a stop to it, but that it should be taken on the responsibility of the community at large.’”
“(1) A person must not pursue a course of conduct — (a) which amounts to harassment of another, and (b) which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other. (1A) A person must not pursue a course of conduct — (a) which involves harassment of two or more persons, and (b) which he knows or ought to know involves harassment of those persons, and (c) by which he intends to persuade any person (whether or not one of those mentioned above)— (i) not to do something that he is entitled or required to do, or (ii) to do something that he is not under any obligation to do. (2) For the purposes of this section …, the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it amounts to or involves harassment of another if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct amounted to harassment of the other. (3) Subsection (1) or (1A) does not apply to a course of conduct if the person who pursued it shows - (a) that it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime, (b) that it was pursued under any enactment or rule of law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any enactment, or (c) that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable.” (a) which amounts to harassment of another, and (b) which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other. (1A) A person must not pursue a course of conduct — (a) which involves harassment of two or more persons, and (b) which he knows or ought to know involves harassment of those persons, and (c) by which he intends to persuade any person (whether or not one of those mentioned above)— (i) not to do something that he is entitled or required to do, or (ii) to do something that he is not under any obligation to do. (2) For the purposes of this section …, the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it amounts to or involves harassment of another if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct amounted to harassment of the other. (3) Subsection (1) or (1A) does not apply to a course of conduct if the person who pursued it shows - (a) that it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime, (b) that it was pursued under any enactment or rule of law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any enactment, or (c) that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable.”
“(2) References to harassing a person include alarming the person or causing the person distress. (3) A ‘course of conduct’ must involve— (a) in the case of conduct in relation to a single person (see section 1(1)), conduct on at least two occasions in relation to that person, or (b) in the case of conduct in relation to two or more persons (see section 1(1A)), conduct on at least one occasion in relation to each of those persons. (3A) A person’s conduct on any occasion shall be taken, if aided, abetted, counselled or procured by another— (a) to be conduct on that occasion of the other (as well as conduct of the person whose conduct it is); and (b) to be conduct in relation to which the other’s knowledge and purpose, and what he ought to have known, are the same as they were in relation to what was contemplated or reasonably foreseeable at the time of the aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring. (4) ‘Conduct’ includes speech. (5) References to a person, in the context of the harassment of a person, are references to a person who is an individual.”
“(i) Harassment is an ordinary English word with a well understood meaning: it is a persistent and deliberate course of unacceptable and oppressive conduct, targeted at another person, which is calculated to and does cause that person alarm, fear or distress; ‘a persistent and deliberate course of targeted oppression’… (ii) The behaviour said to amount to harassment must reach a level of seriousness passing beyond irritations, annoyances, even a measure of upset, that arise occasionally in everybody’s day-to-day dealings with other people. The conduct must cross the boundary between that which is unattractive, even unreasonable, and conduct which is oppressive and unacceptable. To cross the border from the regrettable to the objectionable, the gravity of the misconduct must be of an order which would sustain criminal liability under s.2… A course of conduct must be grave before the offence or tort of harassment is proved… (iii) The provision, in s.7(2) PfHA, that ‘references to harassing a person include alarming the person or causing the person distress’ is not a definition of the tort and it is not exhaustive. It is merely guidance as to one element of it… It does not follow that any course of conduct which causes alarm or distress therefore amounts to harassment; that would be illogical and produce perverse results… (iv) s.1(2) provides that the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it involves harassment of another if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct involved harassment. The test is wholly objective… ‘The Court’s assessment of the harmful tendency of the statements complained of must always be objective, and not swayed by the subjective feelings of the claimant’… (v) Those who are ‘targeted’ by the alleged harassment can include others ‘who are foreseeably, and directly, harmed by the course of targeted conduct of which complaint is made, to the extent that they can properly be described as victims of it’… (vi) Where the complaint is of harassment by publication, the claim will usually engageArticle 10 of the Convention and, as a result, the Court’s duties under ss.2, 3, 6 and 12 of theHuman Rights Act 1998 . The PfHA must be interpreted and applied compatibly with the right to freedom of expression. It would be a serious interference with this right if those wishing to express their own views could be silenced by, or threatened with, proceedings for harassment based on subjective claims by individuals that they felt offended or insulted… (vii) In most cases of alleged harassment by speech there is a fundamental tension. s.7(2) PfHA provides that harassment includes ‘alarming the person or causing the person distress’. However, Article 10 expressly protects speech that offends, shocks and disturbs. ‘Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having’… (viii) Consequently, where Article 10 is engaged, the Court’s assessment of whether the conduct crosses the boundary from the unattractive, even unreasonable, to oppressive and unacceptable must pay due regard to the importance of freedom of expression and the need for any restrictions upon the right to be necessary, proportionate and established convincingly. Cases of alleged harassment may also engage the complainant’s Article 8 rights. If that is so, the Court will have to assess the interference with those rights and the justification for it and proportionality… The resolution of any conflict between engaged rights under Article 8 and Article 10 is achieved through the ‘ultimate balancing test’ identified in In re S [17] … (ix) The context and manner in which the information is published are all-important… The harassing element of oppression is likely to come more from the manner in which the words are published than their content… (x) The fact that the information is in the public domain does not mean that a person loses the right not to be harassed by the use of that information. There is no principle of law that publishing publicly available information about somebody is incapable of amount to harassment… (xi) Neither is it determinative that the published information is, or is alleged to be, true… ‘No individual is entitled to impose on any other person an unlimited punishment by public humiliation such as the Defendant has done, and claims the right to do’… That is not to say that truth or falsity of the information is irrelevant… The truth of the words complained of is likely to be a significant factor in the overall assessment (including any defence advanced under s.1(3)), particularly when considering any application interim injunction… On the other hand, where the allegations are shown to be false, the public interest in preventing publication or imposing remedies after the event will be stronger… The fundamental question is whether the conduct has additional elements of oppression, persistence or unpleasantness which are distinct from the content of the statements; if so, the truth of the statements is not necessarily an answer to a claim in harassment. (xii) Finally, where the alleged harassment is by publication of journalistic material, nothing short of a conscious or negligent abuse of media freedom will justify a finding of harassment. Such cases will be rare and exceptional…”
“A person alleging harassment must prove a ‘course of conduct’ of a harassing nature. Section 7(3)(a) of the PfHA provides that, in the case of conduct relating to a single person, this ‘must involve … conduct on at least two occasions in relation to that person’. But this is not of itself enough: a person alleging that conduct on two occasions amounts to a ‘course of conduct’ must show ‘a link between the two to reflect the meaning of the word “course”‘: Hipgrave -v- Jones[2004] EWHC 2901 (QB) [62] (Tugendhat J). Accordingly, two isolated incidents separated in time by a period of months cannot amount to harassment: R -v- Hills (Gavin Spencer)[2001] 1 FLR 580 [25]. In the harassment by publication case of Sube -v- News Group Newspapers Ltd [2020] EMLR 25 I adopted and applied this interpretative approach, to distinguish between sets of newspaper articles which were ‘quite separate and distinct’. One set of articles followed the other ‘weeks later, prompted, on their face, by new events and new information, and they had different content’: [76(1)], [99] (and see also [113(1)]).”
“the CCTV of the t-rex incident clearly shows Mr Curtin assisting the t-rex’s breach of the Exclusion Zone, as he lends his shoes to the person in the costume”
“During the summer of 2021, the protests outside the Wyton Site became more intense, and it was not possible to enter or exit the Wyton Site safely. In particular, the staff cars trying to enter and exit the Wyton Site were frequently obstructed and surrounded by large groups of protestors. The abuse on particular days and threats and conduct of the Defendants towards me and others working at MBR is referred to in more detail below. It was, however, a terrifying experience entering and exiting the Wyton Site at this time, with protestors standing in front of and surrounding my vehicle on a daily basis, preventing me from freely accessing the Highway from the Wyton Site, or the Wyton Site from the Highway, whilst threatening me and abusing me in an angry and intense manner.”
“On13 July 2021 at 15.56 onwards, [various protestors including John Curtin], stood on the Highway and obstructed my vehicle as I sought to travel along the Access Road to the main carriageway of the Highway, having exited the Wyton Site. [John Curtin and two other protestors] stood to the front and side of my car, which prevented me driving freely along the Access Road as there was no clear pathway for my car through the protestors… Two protestors stood on the Access Road directly in front of my car, so that I had to stop for around 45 seconds. While my car was on the Access Road… John Curtin continually shouted at me through a megaphone… [Another protestor] continually shouted at me, leaning into my passenger side window. [A further protestor] held a placard reading: ‘STOP ANIMAL TESTING’ and took a video recording of my vehicle and those travelling inside. [This protestor] then moved to the front passenger window and continued to take a video recording of those of us travelling inside my car. I have seen the video that [this protestor] was live streaming and, while speaking to those watching his Facebook live video, he can be heard to say ‘Do you recognise these people? Look.’ I understand this statement and recording to be an attempt to identify myself and those travelling with me in my car…”
“The protestors obstructing my vehicle, filming me and trying to film inside my vehicle and shouting at us made me feel intimidated and anxious and is a huge distraction from concentrating on the road while driving… I felt annoyed that the protestors were delaying me getting home, especially whilst making demands that I gesture to them to move and insisting to the police that they needed to ask me to do that. I also felt stressed prior to leaving the Wyton Site because I knew I would get delayed trying to get out of the Wyton Site, as I usually had to wait for the police to move the protestors out of the way. The protestors were scaring, threatening and intimidating me, and I believe their aim is to stop me coming back to the Wyton Site and to make me get a different job.”
“On13 July 2021 at 15:56, protestors stood in the Access Road and obstructed the convoy of staff vehicles as we sought to leave the Wyton Site, as shown in Video 24. I was in my green Vauxhall, which was third in the convoy. [Two protestors] stood directly in front of my car as I sought to exit the Wyton Site, causing me to need to stop on the Driveway for around 50 seconds before I was able to slowly pass them; the incident prevented me having free passage along the Access Road and to the main carriageway of the Highway. [One of these protestors] was yelling ‘shame on you’. I found [this protestor] very intimidating as he was so in my face and so close to my car. I was shaking by the time I got past him. I just did not know what to expect from him given his behaviour, and I feared for my safety. I also found [the other protestor] very intimidating, as he was so worked up, and seemed to be ranting, and kept making reference to whether I was ‘proud’ of my job. He did not appear to be acting rationally, so I was worried about what he would do. John Curtin was also standing to the side of my car, whilst using a loudhailer to shout at me. He can be heard yelling ‘leave this place...are you seriously thinking that this time next year you want to be working at this hellhole...it’s your choice’. I was just trying to ignore him and just drive safely. In another video of the same incident (Video 22), I can see [another female protestor] standing near the bell mouth of the Access Road and to the side of my car (once I have been able to reach that point) and holding posters to my windows and touching my car. I had to stop the car because of her presence. I was thinking of the traffic ahead, because I was trying to join the main carriageway of the Highway, and that this was a road traffic accident waiting to happen, and I was hoping that [she] would move. I then managed to get away. I remember not being able to see because of all the protestors crowding around my car, and the parked cars at the entrance to the Access Road. In Video 21, [another protestor] can be seen stepping back and forth in front of my car, looking like he was moving to the side and then stepping back in front of me; his movements made it very difficult to drive past him. There was also a woman in a baseball cap… standing to the front and side of my car, with a placard.”
“I’m there, and because I’m there, if I’m standing there as a protestor and I’m in some way impairing a perfect view it I wasn’t there, then yes. But these thoughts were not in my mind, and they’re more likely – they should have been in the mind of the police officer really… If it had been pointed out to me, I would have been more than happy – because my job that day was to protest and it wasn’t to endanger anyone. I wouldn’t have wanted that.”
“I accept – I don’t want to be funny – I’m accepting I’m not transparent. The driver would have to – might have to move their neck out or their head… they should not move onto a highway if they can’t see. And if that had been relayed to anyone at the time, it would have been part of the police liaison procedure… My aim here is to protest, and only protest, and do it safely and do it legally and do it well.”
“Each of [the] protestors stood in the Access Road so as to block the convoy of cars in which I was driving the fourth and last car. The protestors then slow walked, and occasionally stopped, along the Access Road and the highway so that the convoy could only pass along the highway at a very slow speed… Once we had travelled about 30 meters along the highway, we were able to drive past the protestors and travel home). Police officers formed a line either side of the convoy of cars to stop protestors from approaching staff cars from the side and rear, and walked the cars out onto the highway. It felt surreal having a police escort; it was like being in a film. The police escort was out of the ordinary, and not something that would usually happen during the protests, so it made me feel uncomfortable as this clearly was not an ordinary event, but on the other hand, their presence also enhanced the sense that this was not a safe situation to be in. The feeling of danger from the protestors makes me feel anxious and stressed. I just wanted to get out of the situation and go home so I did not have to deal with it anymore.”
“Again, terror is still there in the back of your minds. We were unaware of how they could behave at any point… frustration played a big part it in because we just wanted to go home”
“Since the injunction has been in place, I would say that my level of terror has dropped, yes, but there is still the thought something could happen…”
“The change in the protestors’ behaviour since the grant of the November 2021 Injunction has been, at times, limited. Although the introduction of an exclusion zone did reduce the quantity of protestors on the Access Road and around the Gate, it also meant that the obstructing of cars just happens outside of the exclusion zone. Often protestors wait on the boundary of the exclusion zone, or slightly further along the main carriageway of the Highway and intercept cars there instead. It feels like protestors believe that, once staff vehicles are out of the exclusion zone, they can do whatever they like. The exclusion zone is a safety zone and once me and the other MBR staff are out of it, we are fending for ourselves…”
“I make no apologies for the funeral march… and I think it’s a good thing we did the funeral march. The protest happened and the workers got home safely”
“What I am dealing with there is we’ve got loads of volatile people around. It’s going to be a big demo day, let’s get the workers in… [The injunction] is a factor. We’ve got a lot of people coming today, a lot of people who have maybe never been there. I wanted to show … each other that we’re able to not act as everyone for themselves, an unruly mob. There’s many factors why I said that and the injunction is only one of those factors…”
“I was scared that he might know who I was, and he was attacking me personally (even though I was wearing a balaclava and sunglasses…)”
“here comes the shit shovellers… hold them back”
“For those who haven’t been here before, the workers are coming out now. The shit shovellers. And … because of an injunction and the police, the idea is to stand here, hold them back, keep moving and they’ll get to the road, and they’ll go off.”
“Move back!” and then addressing the employees in the vehicles: “Puppy killers… Shame on you. You’re scandalous! Have you noticed, have you noticed what everyone thinks about you now the secret’s out… Where do you tell people you work, puppy killer!”
“We’re going to have a demonstration. They’re going to look at our banners, and they’re going to go home”
“My little plan to give the guy a leaflet ended up as a bit of a ten-minute debacle”
“Around this time (summer 2021) the protestors were very active on social media and would upload videos from their protests at the Wyton Site, as well as ‘live stream’ from outside the Wyton Site on Facebook. As I explain below, it was very invasive and caused me distress that images of my (albeit covered) face and vehicle were being uploaded to public social media sites where I could then potentially be identified and targeted. I knew (from reading articles online and speaking to other colleagues) that some of the protestors ([one] in particular [not Mr Curtin]) had criminal records in relation to activities that they had undertaken in the course of earlier protests, and this made me fear for my own safety even more as I didn’t know what they were capable of. I have taken every single step I can to protect my identity, and I fear for my own safety if I am recognised by the protestors. Since the protests began, I have always been really worried about being identified by the protestors and then being targeted outside of work at my own home. Sadly, targeting at home has happened to a few of my colleagues who have been identified by the protestors, including Employee L (who had their house vandalised), Employee Q (who had their car vandalised outside of their parents’ house), Employee K (who also had their car vandalised) and Dave Manning (who has been approached and abused in public, and had his house vandalised as well). I fear that the same will happen to me if I am identified by the protestors. As I set out below, I was also followed by protestors on1 August 2021 , a protestor took a photo of me through my car window whilst I was stationary at traffic lights. This image was then uploaded to the Camp Beagle Facebook group but thankfully the image quality was not very good, and the image could not reasonably be used to identify me. Nonetheless, this was a scary experience and has caused me a significant amount of anxiety about being recognised ever since.” (2) Ms Read said: “When driving to and from the Wyton Site, I would wear particular clothes and accessories to disguise my identity. I would wear dark glasses, a face mask, and have my hood up. I wore these clothes and accessories so that the protestors could not identify me. The Production Manager and I also advised staff to cover up as much as possible, to disguise their identity. I was anxious to disguise my identity because I did not want my face posted on social media. On22 April 2021 , the Production Manager and I identified that the protestors had published on social media footage of staff the Wyton Site whilst they working, which appeared to be taken from a camera hidden in the fence line at the Wyton Site. This behaviour continued, with the protestors then trying to film or photograph us as we entered and exited the Wyton Site every day, and posting images and videos on social media for anyone to identify us. The most prudent thing is to cover yourself from head to toe. Even though I have experienced many protests at the Wyton Site, I have never worn a disguise before, as I did not feel as at risk with previous protestors that protested at the Wyton Site. The historic protestors would usually notify police in advance of a big protest, so we could plan accordingly. Now the protests are 24/7 and can never be avoided. In the historic protests, the protestors were not interested in the staff as individuals, and they would not harass or target individual people like the current protestors do. Social media was not existent or not as prevalent as it currently is, so the protestors were not able to as easily share the identities of employees. Now the protestors seem to be protesting not only against MBR as a company, but also against the specific individuals that work for the company.” (3) Employee A said: “Initially, when arriving in convoy, we would drive in our own cars. However, on a date I cannot remember, we started to car share to reduce the number of cars entering and exiting the Wyton Site. Car sharing also meant that we could provide physical and emotional support to each other, and I felt more comfortable and slightly safer by having more people in the car with me, rather than being isolated on my own and in my car… Car sharing was helpful as when I was in my own car, and the protestors surrounded me (which happened often), it was incredibly scary, intimidating and harassing. I felt nervous and bullied. The intimidation and feeling of being personally targeted was heightened by the protestors holding the car captive by surrounding it, making a lot of noise, by playing drums and shouting threateningly, and filming me. I was scared that the protestors might smash the windows of the car, slash the tyres or damage the car in some way. It was helpful to have the emotional support of those with me in the car.”
“We had some information that night-time – shipments of dogs at night-time had already happened, a number. They’d sneak the vans in and out. We had an assurance from the police liaison officer that the police were not prepared to cover night-time actions. That was the understanding, and I couldn’t believe this information we received. I was shocked. So we began to have a night-time shift and, hey presto, the van turned up without any police escort and now my intention –once I’m there, apart from the shock of, ‘Oh my God, they’re actually doing this’, there hadn’t been a daytime shipment… for 40 days. I tried to bring it up in court, why are there no more shipments anymore? It wasn’t – I don’t believe it was because of the protestors. They have the police to facilitate that. There was another reason. So I was in shock, it was at night-time, I feel the police had broken their word... They’re sneaking in at night and that’s all. There was no intention to ever stop a van. Other people were always having a go at me, ‘We’ve got to stop the vans’; ‘The police will stop you stopping the vans, the injunction will stop you stopping the vans’… When I spoke to Caroline Bolton after the last hearing, ‘Are we going ahead with this contempt?’, I said, ‘Where’s the obstruction?’, and she said ‘Approaching’. That word ‘approaching’, even I’d sat through the entire injunction, it hadn’t and it still hasn’t −− I don’t think it’s filtered into anyone’s mind actually. What does ‘approaching’ mean? I didn’t have on that night I’m not going to approach a van as in ‘Shame on you’ because that’s breaking the injunction, isn’t it, if we’re going to use the English language? But not to block any van, not to – no.”
“In general, I do not have an issue with the use of drones if they are flown in the right manner and they are not being used to invade people’s privacy. However, there are a number of occasions when I have experienced the protestors flying their drones in a dangerous manner. For example, sometimes they are very erratically flown downwards, and then from side to side quickly. Sometimes the drones are also flown really low, to about the height of a one storey building, which I would say happens about 20–40% of the time I see a drone flight over the Wyton Site. Very occasionally, they come down very low, so it feels like I could reach up and grab the drone. It is very concerning when the low and erratic flights happen, as they drop them suddenly from quite a height. I fear for my safety on these occasions as a drone dropped from such a height could potentially cause physical harm to me or one of my colleagues. I am often concerned for the safety of the staff when the protestors are flying the drones. Typically, the pilot will be sitting in the tent outside the Gate, and will not have a clear view of where the drone is flying. If they were to lose video signal on the drone, they would not be able to see what they were doing and someone could be injured. I have also noticed the protestors fly the drones directly overhead the Wyton Site, and over areas that cannot be observed from the fence line of the Site; I believe that the drones are flown there so they can see what the staff are doing every step of the way during the day. In this respect, there is no privacy. Due to the nature of my role, I spend a lot of time working outside on the Wyton Site, making sure the site is secure and checking the fence, so I have seen a lot of the drones being flown around the site. I do not like being outside when the drones are being flown, because I find them dangerous for the reasons outlined above. However, I have no choice to be outside, as part of my job is keeping an eye on what is going on around the Wyton Site. I am responsible for logging whenever there is a drone sighted on site. I log the date and time each time a drone goes up and is brought down by the protestors. I also try to locate who the pilot is by looking around outside the perimeter of the Wyton Site, and into their camp to see who goes to retrieve the drone when it lands. The security staff undertaking the nightshift follow the same process, and write it on a whiteboard for me to review when I return to work the next day. I then update a central spreadsheet, which I started keeping in September 2022… The CCTV sometimes captures the use of the drones, but they are very small and move around so quickly that they can be hard to spot on CCTV footage.” (2) Employee A stated: “Previously, when the protestors were flying a drone flying over area of the Wyton Site on which I was working, my colleagues used to stop carrying out tasks outside; we did not want to be identified by the protestors or have footage of us posted online (which the protestors do regularly). Stopping outdoor tasks whilst drones were flying meant that anything we needed to do was delayed. For example, part of my role is taking the electric meter reading in the generator room, which involves walking across the car park. On the occasions when I have heard from my colleagues that the protestors are flying the drone, I will delay undertaking the task until I have heard that the drone has come down. I often hear the drones flying, even from inside the office, however as I am not often outside I do not know how low they fly. If I ever do go outside, such as when moving between buildings or during my breaks, to prevent the drone camera capturing images of my face and being identified as a result, I put a mask on and make sure that my face is covered. I am aware that the drones are flown by the protestors a few times a week as I can either hear them, or a member of staff will notify all other staff members about it on the internal radios. If a drone is up, I will try not to go outside. I feel like we are constantly under surveillance, and it is quite a suffocating environment to be in. It feels like an invasion of privacy. On four or five occasions (but I cannot recall when) I have been outside at the Wyton Site when a drone was being flown, and have been scared of it and being identified by it that I turned and faced a wall until it was gone. I will never get used to the sound of a drone for the rest of my life. If I hear one in my personal life, I am worried it is the protestors’ and that they have found me. This happened recently when a neighbour flew a drone over my garden. I panicked and went and hid indoors.” (3) Employee B stated: “The use of drones by the protestors over the Wyton Site has affected my day-to-day activities when at work. It feels like I am being watched 24/7. I wear a cap, balaclava, mask and sunglasses now when working outside at the Wyton Site, because I do not want the drones to video my face and for the protestors to then know my identity. Even though the protestors might know what my name is (for which, see below), they currently do not know what I look like. I do not want to be harassed by protestors who recognise my face. I go outside to empty the bins and I have to wear a disguise just to protect myself. When drones are being flown, we have to adopt a different procedure on how we move around the site, and how we move the animals around the site. We minimise staff working outside to avoid exposing them to the drones, and transport the animals in van instead of in an open air trolley. These different procedures add time to our tasks and means we cannot perform our tasks efficiently. When I hear the drones, it makes me feel uneasy. The drones do fly very low on occasion. One has come within 10 feet of my head before. It does not feel very safe when a remotely controlled drone is flying that close to me.” (4) Employee G stated: “In addition to the harassment as we arrive and leave the Wyton Site, the staff also have to deal with invasive filming by overhead drones. These are now a daily occurrence. I understand from my colleagues that most staff can hear the drones as they buzz overhead, but I have hearing difficulties and will only be aware they are there if I see them. I therefore look up before I leave the buildings to check for drones and make sure that I am covered up with my hat, snood and glasses. The drones often fly really low, sometimes little higher than the single storey buildings on the Wyton Site. When there is a drone overhead and I am outside, I don’t look up. Whilst I am covered up, I really don’t want to be recognised for the reasons I detail above. In order to ensure that I am not recognised I have to carry my hat, snood and glasses with me everywhere I go in case I have to go outside. I also wear these, just to get to the car park in case I am filmed walking to my vehicle. I have seen footage of myself taken by the drones online. The footage shows me moving the animals around site. I believe I saw the footage posted on the Facebook page of Camp Beagle. I recognised myself from the hat I was wearing in the footage and for the activity that I was involved in.” (5) Employee I stated, by way of hearsay evidence: “I remember drones first started appearing over the Wyton Site sometime in 2021, around the time the protests started increasing in intensity in June. Sometimes the drones come as low as the height of our buildings (which are only one storey high), and one time I remember a drone looking through our tea room window. If we are doing something outside, like moving dogs, the drones seem to come lower. The presence of the drones makes me feel like I am constantly being watched, so that the protestors can find more ammunition against us. I can usually hear the drones when I am working outside. They make me feel on edge, and I second guess everything I am doing. The lower the drone is, the more I second guess myself, and whether anything I am doing could be captured by the drone and the footage used by the protestors in a negative light. When the drone is higher, I do not feel as stressed, as it does not feel like the drone is focusing on me as much. Because of the drones, when I am working outside I wear a facemask, a jumper, and I tie my hair up in a bun, to avoid being identified. Photos taken of me by the drones moving animals have been shared on social media but, because of my disguise, I cannot be identified from those photographs.” (6) Employee P stated, by way of hearsay evidence: “The protestors fly drones over the Wyton Site and film staff working or moving on site. When I was first filmed by a drone, I was moving dogs around the Wyton Site. Given the use of the drones, we had started moving the dogs by van to prevent footage of the dogs being captured but, on this occasion, the Production Manager asked me to carry a small number of dogs between buildings. I was carrying a dog across the field when the drone came overhead. I could hear the buzz of the drone. I was wearing a facemask and sunglasses to protect my identity while carrying the dog. After the incident I saw the footage of me on the Camp Beagle Facebook page, being followed by the drone. Being filmed by the drone was really invasive. It made me feel scared and anxious. The drones have become more common and they are spotted almost every day. I do not normally leave the buildings unless I have to because of the drones. If I do leave the buildings, I always wear a face mask.” (7) Employee V stated: “The lowest I have seen a drone flying at the Wyton Site is approximately 3ft above the ground to capture information from dog travel boxes. I am constantly concerned for my safety when drones are flown by the protestors, as a drone could cause a bad injury if it were to crash into something or someone. I hear the drone nearly every day, and on average the drone flies at a 2-storey building height. The protestors used to fly the drone much lower than this, but a couple of months ago this changed and it started to fly higher (but, as I say, it is still about the height of a 2-storey building). To stop the drones filming through windows, I have installed protective measures in all windows of the Wyton Site, for example frosting the glass, installing one way glass laminate or installing curtains. When there is a drone over the Wyton Site, I used to stop carrying out tasks outside, which meant that anything I needed to do was delayed. Now, as it was not possible to carry out the outside tasks required in the time the drone was not up, I have to wear my concealment clothing when working outside at the Wyton Site, as well as driving in and out. I do this to prevent the drones from capturing footage identifying me to the protestors, for the reasons that I have set out above. Having to cover up like this when working is particularly uncomfortable in summer time due to the heat. The drone sound has had a real effect on my mental health. I was once on holiday sitting on the beach and heard a stranger’s drone. I thought that the protestors had found me and as a result I was concerned for my safety. I believe the use of drones is another form of psychological intimidation tactics used by the protestors. I used to immediately report the drones to security, now I just try to ignore it. The drones have a psychological and physical impact on my health.”
“On11 July 2022 at 15.04, [Mr Curtin] walked in front of my car as I was driving along the main carriageway of the Highway… The incident happening as I was leaving the Wyton Site for the day; I left a few minutes later than everyone else on this day. I saw [Mr Curtin] walk across the Highway to the tent, and linger about, I had a feeling as I drove towards him that he was going to step out in front of me. [Mr Curtin], as I approached him in my car, he then walked in front of my car, causing me to slow down to avoid hitting him. He looked at me, and it felt like he was goading me – as if he was thinking ‘I can do what I want away from the Access Road’. I found [Mr Curtin’s] conduct very intimidating and I was fearful, as I did not know what he was planning to do.”
“… you intensified your livestream to intimidate me. You got very close to me. I do agree you did not touch me, but at one point you became very close and you did everything possible to slow my work down.”
“… as I and another member of staff was [sic] putting the notice back up following it needing to be cleaned due to it being spray painted (and to put up new documents) on19 August 2022 from 14.04 onwards [Mr Curtin] approached me and my colleague to film us, and came very close to me, almost touching me, multiple times. If someone came that close to me outside of work, I would tell them to get out of my personal space.”
“Drones flown by the protestors are known to have crash landed on MBR’s land on 5 occasions (10 May 2022 ,12 May 2022 ,3 July 2022 ,3 February 2023 , and19 September 2023 ). This is indicative of drones being flown outside their operational parameters and/or by unsafe piloting. Where the drone has been recovered by the security team, it has been handed over to the police. I asked the security team to consider drone usage over a 5-month period, and this was closely monitored between 1 July and30 November 2023 . This is something that we had not done consistently previously. Staff tried to monitor use of the drone, noting days it was flown and the duration of the flight time over the Wyton Site. In that 5-month period, the security noted that at least 184 drone flights took place over the Wyton site, with an overall flight duration of at least 2,097 minutes (nearly 35 hours). I assume, but do not know, that the protestors filmed and recorded throughout each flight. During this period, there has been a notable increase in drone usage. There have been more drone flights, and the flight time appears to have increased over this period. In the period looked at in detail (1 July to30 November 2023 ), the security team have tried to identify the protestors that fly the drone. Of the 89 flights noted by the security team, it has not been possible to identify a drone pilot in respect of 59 flights (this is equivalent to around 66% of the observed flights). Mr Curtin has been identified as the drone pilot on 18 occasions (or around 20% of the observed flights). The security team have identified a protestor known as [name redacted] as being the drone pilot on 12 occasions (or roughly 13.5% of the observed flights). It is generally understood from previous observations, and the footage uploaded to the Camp Beagle Facebook page, that Mr Curtin is the primary drone pilot…”
“[The Third Claimant], its staff and myself apprehend that the protestors may focus, or refocus, on the B&K Site. Given that [the First and Third Claimants] are sister companies, there would be real benefit in the final injunction applying to both sites so that injunctive relief over the Wyton Site does not simply move the acts of unlawful protest over to the B&K Hull Site… [The Third Claimant] continues to receive nuisance calls. I understand from the staff on the switch board that sometimes the callers are silent and, on occasion, they express a negative view of the work that B&K does. It is therefore clear that the B&K Hull Site is still on the radar of animal rights protestors, and that it is reasonable for the Claimants to apprehend that acts of protest similar to those occurring at the Wyton Site may occur at the B&K Hull Site.”
“(i) They are made against persons who are truly unknowable at the time of the grant, rather than (like Lord Sumption’s class 1 in Cameron) identifiable persons whose names are not known. They therefore apply potentially to anyone in the world. (ii) They are always made, as against newcomers, on a without notice basis (see [139] above). However, as we explain below, informal notice of the application for such an injunction may nevertheless be given by advertisement. (iii) In the context of Travellers and Gypsies they are made in cases where the persons restrained are unlikely to have any right or liberty to do that which is prohibited by the order, save perhaps Convention rights to be weighed in a proportionality balance. The conduct restrained is typically either a plain trespass or a plain breach of planning control, or both. (iv) Accordingly, although there are exceptions, these injunctions are generally made in proceedings where there is unlikely to be a real dispute to be resolved, or triable issue of fact or law about the claimant’s entitlement, even though the injunction sought is of course always discretionary. They and the proceedings in which they are made are generally more a form of enforcement of undisputed rights than a form of dispute resolution. (v) Even in cases where there might in theory be such a dispute, or a real prospect that article 8 rights might prevail, the newcomers would in practice be unlikely to engage with the proceedings as active defendants, even if joined. This is not merely or even mainly because they are newcomers who may by complying with the injunction remain unidentified. Even if identified and joined as defendants, experience has shown that they generally decline to take any active part in the proceedings, whether because of lack of means, lack of pro bono representation, lack of a wish to undertake costs risk, lack of a perceived defence or simply because their wish to camp on any particular site is so short term that it makes more sense to move on than to go to court about continued camping at any particular site or locality. (vi) By the same token the mischief against which the injunction is aimed, although cumulatively a serious threatened invasion of the claimant’s rights (or the rights of the neighbouring public which the local authorities seek to protect), is usually short term and liable, if terminated, just to be repeated on a nearby site, or by different Travellers on the same site, so that the usual processes of eviction, or even injunction against named parties, are an inadequate means of protection. (vii) For all those reasons the injunction (even when interim in form) is sought for its medium to long term effect even if time-limited, rather than as a means of holding the ring in an emergency, ahead of some later trial process, or even a renewed interim application on notice (and following service) in which any defendant is expected to be identified, let alone turn up and contest. (viii) Nor is the injunction designed (like a freezing injunction, search order, Norwich Pharmacal or Bankers Trust order or even an anti-suit injunction) to protect from interference or abuse, or to enhance, some related process of the court. Its purpose, and no doubt the reason for its recent popularity, is simply to provide a more effective, possibly the only effective, means of vindication or protection of relevant rights than any other sanction currently available to the claimant local authorities.”
“(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 [226]-[231] below); and the most generous provision for liberty (i.e. 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.”
“… Canada Goose’s problem is that it seeks to invoke the civil jurisdiction of the courts as a means of permanently controlling ongoing public demonstrations by a continually fluctuating body of protestors. It wishes to use remedies in private litigation in effect to prevent what is sees as public disorder. Private law remedies are not well suited to such a task. As the present case shows, what are appropriate permanent controls on such demonstrations involve complex considerations of private rights, civil liberties, public expectations and local authority policies. Those affected are not confined to Canada Goose, its customers and suppliers and protestors. They include, most graphically in the case of an exclusion zone, the impact on neighbouring properties and businesses, local residents, workers and shoppers. It is notable that the powers conferred by Parliament on local authorities, for example to make a public spaces protection order under theAnti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 , require the local authority to take into account various matters, including rights of freedom of assembly and expression, and to carry out extensive consultation: see, for example, Dulgheriu -v- Ealing London Borough Council[2020] 1 WLR 609 . The civil justice process is a far blunter instrument intended to resolve disputes between parties to litigation, who have had a fair opportunity to participate in it.”
“Conventional methods of service may be impractical where defendants cannot be identified. However, alternative methods of service can be permitted underCPR r 6.15 . In exceptional circumstances (for example, where the defendant has deliberately avoided identification and substituted service is impractical), the court has the power to dispense with service, underCPR r 6.16 .”
“If these established principles and the limits they impose on civil litigation are not observed, the Court risks moving from its proper role in adjudicating upon disputes between parties into, effectively, legislating to prohibit behaviour generally by use of a combination of injunctions and the Court’s powers of enforcement. There may be good arguments - and Mr Anderson QC’s submissions made points that could have been made by all of the Cohort Claimants - as to why such behaviour ought to be prohibited, but it is not the job of the Court, through civil injunctions granted contra mundum, to venture into that territory. Stepping back, the injunction that Wolverhampton was granted, with a power of arrest attached, effectively achieved the criminalisation of trespass on the 60 or so sites covered by the injunction. In a democracy, legislation is the exclusive province of elected representatives. A court operating in an adversarial system of civil litigation simply does not have procedures that are well-suited or designed to prohibit, by injunction, conduct generally…”
“The Eleventh Defendant, Mr John Curtin MUST NOT whether by himself or by instructing or encouraging any other person, group, or organisation do the same: (1). Enter the following land: (a) The First Claimant’s Land at MBR Acres Limited, Wyton, Huntingdon PE28 2DT as set out in Annex 1 (‘the Wyton Site’); (b) The Third Claimant’s premises known as B&K Universal Limited, Field Station, Grimston, Aldbrough, Hull, East Yorkshire HU11 4QE as set out in Annex 2 (‘the Hull Site’); (2) Enter into or remain upon or park any vehicle or place any other item (including, but not limited to, banners) in the area marked with black hatch lines on the plan at Annexes 1 and 2 [which includes all the land up to the midpoint of the highway that is adjacent to the Claimants (sic) property at the Wyton Site]. Save that nothing in this prohibition shall prevent the Defendant from Accessing the highway whilst in a vehicle, for the purpose of passing along the highway only and without stopping in the area marked with black hatching, save for when they are stopped by traffic congestion or any traffic management arranged by or on behalf of the Highways Authority, or to prevent a collision or road accident. (3) Approach and/or obstruct the path of any vehicle directly entering or exiting the area marked in black hatching (save that for the avoidance of doubt it will not be a breach of this Injunction Order where a vehicle is obstructed as a result of an emergency) (4) Approach, slow down, or obstruct any vehicle which is travelling to or from the First Claimant’s Land along the B1090 Abbots Ripton Road, or within 1 mile in either direction of the First Claimant’s Land at the Wyton Site; (5) Fly a drone or other unmanned aerial vehicle over the Wyton Site as marked on the Plan at Annex 1 [at a height below 50 metres, 100 meters, 150 metres] (6) Record or use other surveillance equipment (including drones, camera phones and CCTV) to record individual staff members at the Wyton Site, or when staff are carrying out work on the permitter fence of the Wyton Site. Save that nothing shall prohibit the filming of activities at the gates of the Wyton Site other than the filming of staff cars.”