Hall & Ors v Save Newchurch Guinea Pigs (Campaign) & Ors [2005] EWHC 372 (QB)

Case No HQ04X03789[2005] EWHC 372 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Venue Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, WC2A 2LLDate 17 March 2005
Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE OWEN
Between
(1) Christopher David Hall (for and on behalf of himself, his relatives, friends and employees and tenants of Darley Oaks Farm pursuant to CPR 19.6)Claimants(2) Margaret Lavinia HallClaimant(3) David HallClaimant(4) Evan John HallClaimant(5) Margaret Ann HallClaimant(6) Peter Clamp (for and on behalf of himself, the residents and members of theClaimantCommunity of the Parishes of Newborough and Yoxall and the Suppliers and Contractors of Darley Oaks Farm pursuant to CPR 19.6)Claimant(1) Save Newchurch Guinea Pigs (Campaign)Defendants(2) John AblewhiteDefendant(3) Janet TomlinsonDefendant(4) Amanda KingDefendant(5) Gillian BradleyDefendant(6) Catherine AdlenDefendant(7) Neil LeaDefendant(8) Kevin WhiteDefendant(9) Kerry WhitburnDefendant(10) Samuel BensonDefendant(11) Wendy AttwoodDefendant(12) Dr Max GastoneDefendant(13) Mel BroughtonDefendant(14) John CurtinDefendant(15) Stop Huntingdon Animal CrueltyDefendant(16) SPEAK (Campaign)Defendant(17) Animal Liberation FrontDefendant
Mr T. Lawson-Cruttenden (Solicitors) for ClaimantsMr S. Dally (Lay Representative) Defendants
Judgment

INTRODUCTION

[1]The first to fifth claimants (the Halls) are partners in a family farming business which trades as Messrs David Hall (The Partnership). The first and fourth claimants are brothers, the second and fifth claimants are married respectively to the first and fourth claimants. The third claimant is the father of the first and fourth claimants.[2]The Partnership farms Darley Oaks Farm, Ivy Bank Farm and The Oaklands. The farms are in close proximity one to another, and are in or near the village of Newchurch on the A515 to the West of Burton-upon-Trent in the County of Staffordshire. The first and second claimants live at Darley Oaks Farm, the third claimant at Ivy Bank Lodge, the fourth and fifth claimants at Ivy Bank Farm.[3]The farming activities undertaken by the partnership include the breeding of guinea pigs for medical research.[4]It is the claimants case that they, their relatives, friends, employees and tenants have been subjected to a lengthy and sustained campaign by animal rights activists directed at closing down their guinea pig breeding activities. The campaign has extended to their contractors, and to their contractors’ employees and their families.[5]By an Order by Holland J. dated 24 November 2004 and made under CPR 19.6, the first claimant represents his relatives, his friends and the employees and tenants of Darley Oaks Farm.[6]The sixth claimant, Peter Clamp, is a Councillor for the Parish of Newborough. By the Order of 24 November 2004 he represents “… the Residents and Members of the Community of the Parishes of Newborough and Yoxall and the Suppliers and Contractors of Darley Oaks Farm”. He now seeks a further order under CPR 19.6 giving him permission to represent the residents and members of the community of the Parishes of Draycott in the Clay, Hanbury, Tatenhill, Barton-under- Needwood and Hoar Cross.[7]The claimants are all represented by a solicitor advocate, Mr Lawson-Cruttenden.[8]The first, fifteenth, sixteenth and seventeenth defendants are unincorporated associations involved in the animal rights movement. The remaining defendants are individuals alleged by the claimants to be involved in that movement. By the draft defence of the first defendant, which has been put before the Court, it is admitted that since around September 1999 the first defendant has been conducting a campaign aimed at closing down the guinea pig breeding business conducted by the Halls. The first defendant asserts that the campaign has been lawful. Mr Lawson-Cruttenden has invited the first defendants to identify the individuals responsible for its management and control. There has been no response to that invitation.[9]All the defendants save for the seventeenth, the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), were represented before me by a lay representative, Mr Dally.[10]The Halls and Mr Clamp seek injunctive relief against the defendants restraining them from participating in an alleged campaign of harassment and intimidation.[11]An application for an interim injunction was made to Hodge J. on 2 December 2004 on short notice in advance of a demonstration planned to take place in Oxford on 4December 2004.[12]Hodge J. made an order restraining “The Protestors” from pursuing a course of conduct which amounts to harassment of the “Protected Persons”. “Protestors” and “Protected Persons” are defined in Clauses 5 and 6 of the order in the following terms - “Clause 5. In this order Protestor or Protestors shall mean -(a) the Defendants whether by themselves, their servants, agents or otherwise,(b) any other person who is acting in concert with any of the named Defendants to do any act prohibited by this Order and who has notice of the terms of this Order whether by himself, his servants, agents, or otherwise; and(c) any other person who has been given notice of the terms of this Order whether by himself, his servants, agents or otherwise, who does an act prohibited by this Order. Clause 6. In this order Protected Persons shall mean - (a) The claimants (b) The members and relatives of the Hall family (c) The friends of the Hall family(d) The employees of Darley Oaks Farm(e) The tenants of Darley Oaks Farm(f) The families, servants or agents of the claimants, the Hall family, the friends of the Hall family and the employees and tenants of Darley Oaks Farm(g) The proprietors, employees and shareholders of the contractors(h) The families, servants or agents of the proprietors employees and shareholders of the contractors(i) Any persons seeking to visit Darley Oaks Farms, Ivy Bank Farm, The Oaklands or any premises referred to in this Order, or any premises or home belonging to or occupied by any of the aforesaid Protected Persons or any home or premises which is or are the subject of an exclusion zone or exclusion zones.” I shall use the terms in the same sense.[13]It is not necessary to set out the terms of the order in full. The return date was fixed for the 17 January 2005 when the matter came before me. On 17January I ordered that the order made by Hodge J. should continue until further order, modified to permit demonstrations to take place on Sundays subject to the constraints imposed by Hodge J.[14]THE ISSUES There are four discreet issues for determination at this stage of the proceedings. It is accepted on behalf of the first, second, fourth, sixth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, fourteenth, fifteenth and sixteenth defendants that, subject to the second issue, the injunction made by Mr Justice Hodge should continue until trial. The eighth defendant is prepared to give an undertaking to the same effect. The first issue is therefore whether the claimants are entitled to injunctive relief against the third, fifth, seventh, twelfth, thirteenth and seventeenth defendants.[15]The second issue is as to the detailed terms of the order. The order made by Hodge J. made specific provision for demonstrations by the defendants against the activities undertaken by the partnership; but there is an issue between the parties as to the frequency, duration, and location of such demonstrations, and as to the maximum number of participants.[16]The third issue relates to the position of the sixth claimant, Mr Clamp. The defendants do not accept that he is entitled to act on behalf of the residents and members of the community of the parishes additional to those identified in the order made by Holland J. on 24 November 2004.[17]Fourthly both the Halls and Mr Clamp in his representative capacity seek an order excluding Protestors, from an area of approximately 200 sq. kms containing the seven parishes whose residents Mr Clamp seeks to represent, and extending beyond the limits of the parishes to natural boundaries in the form of roads and rivers (the proposed exclusion zone). That application is strenuously opposed.[18]THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK The claim is brought under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (The Act) Section 1 provides that:
“(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. (2) For the purposes of this section, the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it amounts to 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.” (a) which amounts to harassment of another, and, (b) which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other. (2) For the purposes of this section, the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it amounts to 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.”
[19]Section 2 provides that a person who pursues a course of conduct in breach of Section 1 is guilty of an offence. Section 3 provides for a civil remedy. It is in the following terms: 3(1) An actual or apprehended breach of Section 1 may be the subject of a claimant’s civil proceedings by the person who is or may be the victim of the course of conduct in question. 2. …… 3. Where –(a) in such proceedings the High Court or a County Court grants an injunction for the purpose of restraining the defendant from pursuing any conduct which amounts to harassment, and(b) the plaintiff considers that the defendant has done anything which he is prohibited from doing by the injunction, the plaintiff may apply for the issue of a warrant for the arrest of the defendant.[20]The power to grant an injunction is contained in Section 37(1) of the Supreme Courts Act 1981 which provides that:
“The High Court may by Order (whether interlocutory or final) grant an injunction … in all cases in which it appears to the Court to be just and convenient to do so.”
The principles that will ordinarily be applied are well known, see American Cyanamid v Ethicon Ltd [1975] 1 AC 396. But as Grigson J observed in his judgment in the claim for injunctive relief brought by the University of Oxford and others against animal rights activists, a number of whom also feature as defendants in this case, [2004] EWHC 2543 (QB), since the decision of the House of Lords in Cream Holdings Limited and others v Banerjee and others [2004] UKHL 44, [2004]3 WLR 918, a more stringent test must be applied where the injunction sought will encroach upon an individual defendant’s rights to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the ECHR. Article 10 (2) provides that:
“10(2) the exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of … public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others …”
[21]Article 11(2) contains a similar qualification. The proper approach to interim injunctive relief in such cases was addressed in Cream Holdings. At paragraph 22, Lord Nicholls, who gave the principal judgment, said:
“There can be no single or rigid standard governing all applications for interim restraint orders. Rather, on its proper construction the effect of Section 12(3) (of the Human Rights Act 1998) is that the Court is not to make an interim restraint order unless satisfied the applicant’s prospects of success at the trial are sufficiently favourable to justify such an order being made in the particular circumstances of the case. As to what degree of likelihood makes the prospects of success ‘sufficiently favourable’, the general approach should be that the Courts will be exceedingly slow to make interim restraint orders where the applicant has not satisfied the Court that he will probably (‘more likely than not’) succeed at trial. In general, that should be the threshold an applicant must cross before the Court embarks on exercising its discretion, duly taking into account the relevant jurisprudence on Article 10 and any counter veiling convention rights.”
[22]Cream Holdings & Banogee involved breach of confidentiality; but in Burris vAzadani [1995] 1WLR 1373 the Court of Appeal addressed the principles upon which a Court will grant interlocutory injunctive relief in harassment cases, holding that both the High Court and the County Court had jurisdiction under Section 37(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 and Section 38 of the County Courts Act 1984 to grant interlocutory injunctions in wide terms to restrain conduct that was not in itself tortuous or otherwise unlawful, if such order was reasonably to be regarded as necessary for the protection of a plaintiff’s legitimate interest. To that end the court had power to impose an exclusion zone when granting a non-molestation injunction restraining harassment of the victim by the defendant, provided no unnecessaryrestraint was placed on the defendant.[23]The principal judgment was given by Sir Thomas Bingham MR (as he then was). In the course of his judgment he said:
“It would not seem to me to be a valid objection to the making of an exclusion zone order that the conduct to be restrained is not in itself tortuous or otherwise unlawful, if such an order is reasonably regarded as necessary for the protection of a plaintiff’s legitimate interest (1377 G)”
. At 1380 F-H:
“Neither the statute nor authority in my view precludes the making of an ‘exclusion zone’ order. But that does not mean that such orders should be made at all readily, or without very good reason. There are two interests to be reconciled. One is that of the defendant. His liberty must be respected up to the point at which his conduct infringes, or threatens to infringe, the rights of the plaintiff. No restraint should be placed on him which is not judged to be necessary to protect the rights of the plaintiff. But the plaintiff has an interest which the court must be astute to protect. The rule of law requires that those whose rights are infringed should seek the aid of the court, and respect for the legal process can only suffer if those who need protection fail to get it. That, in part at least, is why disobedience to orders of the court has always earned severe punishment. Respect for the freedom of the aggressor should never lead the court to deny necessary protection to the victim.”
[24]ISSUE 1 The first issue is whether the claimants are entitled to injunctive relief against the third, fifth, seventh, twelfth, thirteenth and seventeenth defendants.[25]It is conceded on behalf of the defendants that the Halls “ …. present a strong casethat they have been subjected to unlawful and tortuous activities”, and it is accepted that evidence that gives rise to a good arguable case that a defendant has or may in future participate in unlawful harassment, whether directly or indirectly, may entitle the claimants to injunctive relief against that defendant. But it is also submitted that there has been lawful protest activity, and that participation in such lawful activity cannot provide the grounds for such relief. The test is not whether there is a good arguable case of involvement in tortuous or unlawful activity. The test, per Lord Bingham in Burris, is whether an order against an individual defendant is reasonably to be regarded as necessary for the protection of the claimants’ legitimate interests.[26]The case against each defendant is pleaded in succinct terms in paragraph 12 of the Particulars of Claim. As to the third defendant, Janet Tomlinson, the claimants plead that since 2February 2003 she has been involved in ninety one known protest incidents as part of the first defendants campaign, that on 15 August 2004 she was interviewed by The Times in her capacity as “a regular protestor outside Newchurch Guinea PigFarm”; and on 16th October 2004 the Daily Mirror reported that “she is at the forefrontof the campaign against Darley Oaks Farm in Newchurch Staffs although she insists that she knows nothing of the terror attacks there”. Those allegations are all admitted in the draft defence but it is denied that she is at the forefront of the campaign. It is averred that she has regularly engaged in peaceful protest against the Halls since the inception of the campaign in September 1999. Miss Tomlinson has filed three witness statements in which she asserts that she has protested peacefully. But she does acknowledge that she has in the past used a megaphone when campaigning at the entrance to Darley Oaks Farm over the past five years.[27]I am satisfied that the claimants have established a good arguable case that she has been involved in the campaign to harass the Halls, that her involvement in the campaign of harassment will continue unless restrained by injunction.[28]As to the fifth defendant, Gillian Bradley, it is alleged in the Particulars of Claim that since 2 February 2003 she has been involved in 23 known protest incidents as part of the first defendant’s campaign. Secondly on four occasions she has been convicted of offences committed in the course of the campaign. On 10 May 2000 at the Mid-Staffordshire and Rugeley Magistrates Court she received a conditional discharge for eighteen months for having an article (paint) with intent to cause damage and/or destroy property. On 15 January 2001 she was fined £100 at the same court for resisting or obstructing a police constable and for breach of the conditional discharge. On 26 March 2001 she again appeared at that court and was fined £100 on two charges of possession of paint with intent to damage and/or destroy property and for further breach of the conditional discharge. On 25 October 2002 she was sentenced to nine months imprisonment at the Basildon Crown Court for destroying or damaging property. The claimants also seek to rely on a harassment warning issued by the Staffordshire police on 28 July 2002.[29]Miss Bradley has filed a witness statement in which she says that for the past three years she has only protested peacefully and has fully complied with all directions given by the police. But as in the case of the third defendant, I am satisfied that her involvement in the first defendant’s campaign of harassment is such that injunctive relief is necessary for the protection of the claimants’ legitimate interests.[30]As to the seventh defendant, Neil Lea, it is alleged in the Particulars of Claim that he is a signatory of the first defendant’s bank account, and is therefore an officer and/or co-ordinator of the first defendant. It is also alleged that on 27 April 1999 he was bound over at the Witney Magistrates Court in the sum of £50 for a period of twelve months for failing to comply with a condition imposed on a public procession and wilfully obstructing free passage along the highway. Secondly in his fifth witness statement, dated 4 January 2005, served in support of the application, Rizwan Majid, a solicitor of Lawson-Cruttenden & Co., exhibited news archive material downloaded from the first defendant’s web-sites Liberation-now.org and Guineapigs.org.uk. The web-sites appear to be the principal mechanism by which the first defendant co-ordinates its campaign. By his tenth witness statement dated 11 January 2005, Mr Majid states that the web-site Guineapigs.org.uk is registered to ARC news, which is edited by the seventh defendant. He also asserts that it is likely that the seventh defendant, and Amanda King, the fourth defendant who submits to the continuation of the injunction, are likely to control the web-site Liberation-now.org.[31]In his case the draft defence admits that he is a signatory of the first defendant’s bank account but denies that he is either an officer or co-ordinator. He states in his witness statement that he had a kidney transplant on 29 May 2000, and that he has since had nothing to do with the first defendant’s campaign and has no intention of protesting against the Halls in the future. He says that he has not removed his name from the first defendant’s bank account due to an oversight, but that he has not signed a cheque since 2000. Mr Lawson-Cruttenden observes that he has had ample opportunity to remove his name from the first defendant’s bank account since the hearing before Hodge J. but has failed to do so. I am satisfied that in his case the claimants have made out a good arguable case that his involvement in the first defendant’s campaign of harassment is such as to warrant injunctive relief against him.[32]The claimants’ case against the twelfth defendant, Dr Max Gastone, is that he is associated with the first defendant’s campaign both in his own capacity and as an organiser or co-ordinator of the fifteenth defendant, Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC). The claimants rely upon his having been involved in four known protest incidents as part of the first defendant’s campaign since 2 February 2003. Secondly they rely on four convictions. On 17 July 2000 he appeared at Horse Ferry Road Magistrates Court where he received a twelve month conditional discharge for resisting or obstructing a police constable. On 15 November 2000 he was fined £250 for damaging property at the Herefordshire Magistrates Court. On 17 October 2003 he was given a Community Punishment Order at the Southwark Crown Court for destroying or damaging property, and on 16 January 2004 he received a further Community Punishment Order at the Litchfield and Tamworth Magistrates Court for aggravated trespass involving the use of a megaphone. Those allegations are all admitted; but it is submitted that the first three convictions did not arise from activities associated with the first defendant’s campaign. As to the fourth it is conceded that it was in relation to the campaign against the claimants, but asserted that it resulted from a protest which did not amount to harassment. He has filed two witness statements in which he states that he is representing SHAC in these proceedings. His second witness statement sets out details of the incident that resulted in his conviction for aggregated trespass. He was arrested at Branston Golf Course for protest activity directed at members of the Golf Club of which one of the Hall family was a member. I am satisfied that the claimants have made out a good arguable case that they require protection from him.[33]The pleaded case against the thirteenth defendant, Mel Broughton, is that since 2February 2003 he has been involved in three known protest incidents as part of the first defendant’s campaign and that on 25 February 2000 he was sentenced to four years imprisonment at the Northampton Crown Court for conspiracy to cause an explosion likely to endanger life or property. Furthermore schedule B to the Particulars of Claim contains an article based on an interview with Mr Broughton published by the sixteenth defendant, SPEAK. In it Mr Broughton is reported as saying in essence that to be effective, animal rights campaigns will need to work outside the law. The annexe also contains a download from the Liberation-now.org website showing a picture of Mr Broughton speaking to a meeting of five hundred activists at Newchurch on 24 April 2004 in which he is reported as talking “ … extensively about the importanceabout the collaboration between the SNGP, SPEAK and SHAC …”. In his witness statement Mr Broughton states that he is a spokesperson for the SPEAK campaign. He says that he supports the lawful aims of the first defendant, but denies that the article contained in annexe B to the Particulars of Claim accurately reflects the comments made in the course of the interview.[34]In the light of his past record and of the statements ascribed to him, I am satisfied that there is a good arguable case that unless restrained, he will be involved, whether directly or indirectly, in a continuation of the campaign against the Halls. That conclusion is reinforced by the concession made by Mr Dally that there is a good arguable case against the sixteenth defendant, SPEAK, of which Mr Broughton holds himself out as a spokesperson.[35]Different considerations apply to the seventeenth defendant, ALF. It does not appear, and is not represented. The claimants plead that ALF is an unincorporated association which holds itself out as conducting unlawful activities against individuals and organisations whom they consider to be the “legitimate targets” of the animal rights movements. There is ample support for the pleaded case in the material published on the ALF website for the inclusion of ALF in the injunction.[36]It follows that in my judgment the claimants are entitled to injunctive relief against all of the defendants.[37]ISSUE 2 There are four aspects of the Order made by Hodge J. on an interim basis that are now in issue between the parties, namely the frequency, duration, and location of the demonstrations that are to be permitted, and the restriction on the number of participants.[38]FREQUENCY The evidence is to the effect that since the campaign began in 1999, there have been demonstrations at Darley Oak Farm on a weekly basis on Sundays. The claimants recognise the defendants’ right lawfully to protest against their activities, but contend that such demonstrations should be limited to once a month, and secondly that they should not take place on Sundays. I am not persuaded that the proper protection of the claimants’ rights requires a further limitation on the frequency of demonstrations given the other restrictions that will be imposed. The defendants will continue to be permitted to protest on a weekly basis.[39]As to the day of the week upon which such demonstrations should be permitted, it was submitted on behalf of the claimants that they should be entitled to enjoy their Sundays free from the inevitable intrusion of such demonstrations. The counter argument advanced on behalf of the individual defendants is that many are at work during the week, and that in consequence Sundays are realistically the only day upon which they can exercise their right to protest. Again in the light of the further restrictions, in particular as to the ban on the use of instruments or amplifiers and as to the duration of demonstrations, I am not persuaded that the proper protection of the claimants’ rights requires a direction that demonstrations should take place on a day other than a Sunday. I shall order that the defendants will be entitled to continue to demonstrate on Sundays.[40]DURATION Hodge J. ordered that the permitted demonstrations should take place between the hours of 12 pm and 3 pm. The claimants seek a reduction to two hours, the defendants an increase by advancing the starting time to 11.30 am. I am not persuaded by either argument. In my judgment a period of three hours strikes a fair balance between the conflicting interests of claimants and defendants. I shall order that demonstrations be permitted between the hours of 12 pm and 3 pm.[41]LOCATION At paragraph 2(d) of the order of 2 December 2004, Hodge J. restrained the protestors from “knowingly picketing, demonstrating or loitering within 100 yards of the houses of any of the Protected Persons …..”, and at paragraph 2(e) from “knowingly picketing, demonstrating or loitering within 250 yards of the premises of any of the contractors, sub-contractors and suppliers”.[42]As to the Protected Persons, and in the light of the evidence before me as to the activities in which animal rights activists have engaged in the course of this campaign, I am satisfied that a 100 yard zone is required for their proper protection. I am not persuaded that a larger zone is required for the proper protection of contractors, sub-contractors and suppliers. Accordingly an exclusion zone of 100 yards will also apply to the premises of contractors, sub-contractors and suppliers.[43]LIMITATION ON THE NUMBER OF DEMONSTRATORS The Order made by Hodge J. provided that there should be no more than twenty five protestors at each demonstration. Again the claimants seek a reduction, the defendants an increase. The claimants suggest that demonstrations should be limited to six people, the defendants seek an increase to thirty five. The issue is linked to the issues of frequency, duration and location. Given my decision that demonstrations should be permitted on a weekly basis and for a period of three hours, I have come to the conclusion that the figure at which Hodge J. arrived represents a fair balance between the proper protection of the claimants and the defendants’ rights under Articles 10 and 11.[44]ISSUE 3 Mr Clamp, the sixth claimant, seeks a Representation Order under CPR 19.6. By virtue of the order made by Holland J. on 24 November 2004 he represents the “Residents and Members of the Community of the Parishes of Newborough and Yoxall”. But he also wishes to represent the residents and members of the community of the Parishes of Draycott in the Clay, Hanbury, Tattenhill, Barton under Needwood and Hoar Cross. The application is supported by Mr Clamp’s third witness statement dated 12 January 2005. He says that the level of intimidation which has been directed against the members of the seven parishes (including Newborough and Yoxall) is alarming. He asserts that there is hardly an individual living within the parishes who has not been affected by the tactics used by the animal rights activists. He says that the tactics are to intimidate and cause fear in such a way as to undermine and ostracise the partners of Darley Oaks Farm from the local community.[45]Despite numerous attempts he has not been able to obtain formal letters of authority or formal mandates to act on behalf of the members of the parishes. He says that that is because individuals feared that if they gave them, they would be targeted by the animal rights activists, and at best their property would be damaged, at worst they would be assaulted or caused unlawful injury. He expresses amazement that to date no one has suffered serious injury or loss of life as a direct result of the campaign and is particularly concerned with recent tactics adopted by the activists to target the elderly and the vulnerable, including children.[46]At paragraph 5(d) of his third witness statement Mr Clamp asserts that he is satisfied that the residents of the parishes of Hoar Cross, Hanbury and Tattenhill support his application for relief in these proceedings. He relies on his intimate knowledge of the locality, having been born and bred in the area and having lived in Newborough for twenty years, and from his frequent discussions with residents. He also relies upon a survey undertaken by the Staffordshire Police. Details of the survey are contained in the third witness statement made by Inspector David Bird, who is the Senior Officer responsible for managing the Police Authority’s Environmental Protest Unit. In paragraph 5 of that witness statement Inspector Bird says:
“The animal rights campaign against the claimants started in about November 1999. This campaign has involved a tremendous amount of policing time. Recent estimates suggest that Staffordshire Police has spent in the region of £2,250,000 in policing costs since that date, a small proportion of which it has been able to recover from the Home Office. This represents policing costs of an extraordinary and extravagant nature as in reality the costs are incurred in protecting the interests of a family partnership which comprises five individuals, with an extended family of two more individuals. Of course looking at it in this way is not strictly correct as a great deal of police time has been spent protecting the wider community who face what can only be described as a vicious campaign of harassment and intimidation directed against anyone whom the animal rights activists consider to have any association with Darley Oaks Farm. Staffordshire police have no alternative but to incur these costs. However, I submit that incurring costs on this scale is not in the public interest. One of the reasons why the police support this injunction is in order to save costs thereby enabling a police budget which is overstretched, to be applied in support of the wider community and in the normal police role of preserving the peace and preventing an investigating crime. Until now, the reality is that the policing costs of protecting Darley Oaks Farm, is not far off a figure of £8,600 per week.”
[47]At paragraph 8 Inspector Bird says that the Staffordshire police have sought feed back from residents of the parishes of Newborough and Newchurch concerning the policing policies connected with Darley Oaks Farm. Surveys were carried out in March 2003 and April 2004 involving the submission of 206 questionnaires to the residents of the parishes of Newborough and Newchurch living closest to Darley Oaks Farm. The response to the March 2003 survey was 28.6% and the April 2004 survey 30%. He exhibited the analysis of the responses at DB8. They revealed concern with harassment and intimidation, vandalism and graffiti, noise from fireworks and loudspeakers and the presence of protesters in the local community. At paragraph 10 of his third witness statement Inspector Bird says that he believes that the community represented by the seven parishes fully supports the claimants’ applications for injunctive relief in this action. He continues: “I also believe that most of the community would prefer to see the actions of the activists limited to a small number of quiet and responsible protests which do not disrupt the community thereby preserving some form of balance between the lawful activists rights to peacefully and properly protest and this rural community’s rights to peaceful enjoyment of their homes and their villages and land.[48]Mr Clamp also relies upon letters from the two MP’s whose constituencies together include the whole of the area encompassed within the seven parishes, Michael Fabricant MP who represents the constituency of Litchfield, and Janet Dean MP who represents the constituency of Burton. The letter from Michael Fabricant is in the following terms:
“LETTER IN SUPPORT OF PETER CLAMP AND THE COMMUNITY IN THE INJUNCTION APPLICATION BY THE HALL PARTNERSHIP TO TIM LAWSON-CRUTTENDEN, SOLICITOR ADVOCATE. I, Michael Fabricant, the duly elected MP for the constituency of Litchfield, am writing in support of the application for injunctive relief which covers the parishes of Newborough, Yoxall, Draycott, Hanbury, Tattenhill, Barton under Needwood and Hoare Cross. In particular I give my unreserved support to the representative action undertaken by Peter Clamp on behalf of the wider community and of those of my constituents who reside in the above named parish. The support for Mr Clamp’s action on behalf of the wider community is overwhelming and explains why he was obliged to undertake the extension of the action from the original two parishes to the seven parishes which have now been included in the application. Significant numbers of my constituents have indicated that they would like to be protected by this action and give their support to it. However, such is the climate of fear caused by this long and escalating campaign of intimidation and nuisance that many of them are no longer willing to do so publicly, or even anonymously, on an individual basis.”
[49]The letter from Janet Dean MP is in identical terms save for her name and constituency. Mr Dally invited me not to place reliance upon the letters from the MPs on the basis that they cannot speak on behalf of the community on every issue.[50]Mr Clamp also exhibits a letter written by the Clerk to the Hoar Cross Parish Council to Michael Fabricant MP in the following terms: “Darley Oaks Farm, Newchurch In the light of the nuisance, intimidation and vandalism which has been experienced by so many in the locality, Hoar Cross Parish Council wishes to support the application by Mr Clamp for an injunction preventing any of the protestors going within a 5 mile radius of Darley Oaks Farm”.[51]Acting on the instructions of Mr Clamp, Lawson-Cruttenden & Co. have recently undertaken a ballot of those living within the post codes that cover the seven parishes. A total of 31,728 ballot papers, each individually numbered, were sent to 15,864 addresses by first class post on 11 January 2005. A copy of the ballot paper is annexed to this judgment. It stated that at the hearing on 2 December 2004 “the Court stated that insufficient evidence was presented to show that the exclusion zone was desired by the residents of all the parishes.” It continued:
“In the week beginning 17 January 2005 the High Court is being asked to re-consider this matter. Peter Clamp, a Newborough Parish Councillor is representing those who wish to support the exclusion zone around the seven parishes. Please note protests at specific times will still be allowed within a specially designated protest area outside Darley Oaks Farm, Newchurch. YOUR VIEW COUNTS If you wish to express your opinion, either for or against the exclusion zone, please tick the appropriate box below, fill in the details and return this sheet in the stamped addressed envelope provided.”
The ballot then contains two boxes with a space for a cross, the first saying “YES, I DO want Peter Clamp to represent me and YES, I DO support the exclusion zone.” The second box says “NO, I DO NOT want Peter to represent me and NO, I DO NOT support the exclusion zone.”

YOUR VIEW COUNTS

[52]By the 21 January 2005, the date of Rizwan Majid’s eleventh witness statement, 3738 ballot papers, 25.8%, had been returned to Lawson-Cruttenden & Co. Mr Majid’s analysis of the returns is at Exhibit MM 17. Of the 1762 ballot papers returned from addresses within the seven parishes, 92.5% were in the affirmative, 2.5% negative, and 5% undecided. Of those returned from neighbouring areas, 87.3% were in the affirmative, 6% negative and 6.7% undecided. It is submitted on behalf of Mr Clamp that the response substantiates his claim to be representing the interests of the residents of the seven parishes.[53]Mr Dally submits that the ballot is flawed and unreliable, and secondly relies on four witness statements from Josephine Mayo as to visits to houses within the parishes inviting their occupants to sign a petition headed as follows:
“We the undersigned live in the area around Newchurch village and support the right to peaceful protest. We believe any Exclusion Zone is an infringement of the democratic right to peacefully protest. We object to Peter Clamp speaking on our behalf. He does not represent us or our feelings on this matter.”
She and her colleagues have obtained a number of signatures to that petition and by her third witness statement she contends that their results show that Mr Clamp does not have the support of the entire community but only has the support of a minority of residents.[54]Mr Dally identified a number of reasons why in his submission the ballot undertaken on behalf of the claimants should not be relied upon. First he argued that it was unfairly worded and misrepresented what had been said at the hearing on 2 December 2004. In particular he pointed out that the statement that Mr Clamp “is representing those who wish to support the exclusionzone around the seven parishes” is incorrect and overstates the position, as at that stage his Representation Order was limited to the parishes of Newborough and Yoxall. He further submitted that the extent of the exclusion zone being sought should have been spelt out together with full details of the permitted protests, and that the wide definition of the term “protestor” should have been set out. He further argued that the ballot should have made clear the draconian consequences of breach of such an exclusion zone. In short he argued that to be relied upon, the wording of the ballot should have been neutral and should have been agreed in advance.[55]He also criticised the form of the ballot on the basis that there were two elements to each question, and that in relation to the first those responding might want Mr Clamp to represent them but might not support the exclusion zone.[56]I am not persuaded that Mr Clamp is entitled to an order permitting him to represent all the residents and members of the communities of the further five parishes for two reasons. First there is no doubt that there is a very substantial body of opinion within the parishes that strongly support his action. But it is equally clear that there are some who do not or who take a neutral position. I also recognise that there are yet others who are not prepared to express a view lest they should themselves become the target of the protestors. But this is a legal process, not a political exercise. His representative capacity does not depend upon a majority vote.[57]Secondly there can be no doubt that the activities of those involved in the campaign to close down the Halls’ guinea pig breeding activities, activities which I shall consider in greater detail at a later stage, have had a considerable impact upon the residents of the seven parishes. But it is the indirect impact of activities aimed at the Halls and those associated with them, the “Protected Persons”. If adequate steps are taken to protect the Protected Persons from harassment and intimidation, the impact upon the community at large will cease. Thus on a proper analysis neither the residents and members of the community of the parishes of Newborough and Yoxall, nor those of the other five parishes, have an interest that requires protection beyond that properly to be afforded to the Protected Persons.[58]ISSUE 4 The Halls, and Mr Clamp representing the residents and members of the community of the parishes of Newborough and Yoxall, and the suppliers and contractors of Darley Oaks Farm pursuant to the order made by Holland J. on 24 November 2004, seek an order excluding “Protestors” from the proposed exclusion zone.[59]The exclusion zone is an area to the West of Burton-upon-Trent. It is an area of approximately 200 sq. kms roughly square in shape with the village of Newchurch at its centre. It is bounded on the East by the A38, on the South by the A513, on the West by the B5014 to Abbots Bromley and then North to Uttoxeter by the B5013, and to the North by the River Dove from Uttoxeter to Tutbury and from Tutbury to Horninglow by the A50. The exclusion zone contains the seven parishes, but extends beyond the parish boundaries to the roads and river identified above. The claimants seek an exclusion Order for the protection of those within the seven parishes, but propose the extended area in the interests of clarity and certainty. They submit that in any event the area lying within the exclusion zone but outside the parish boundaries is agricultural land that is sparsely populated. The proposed zone is illustrated on the map annexed hereto.[60]The issue is whether the imposition of the proposed exclusion zone is reasonably to be regarded as necessary for the protection of the “Protected Persons”. If that question is to be answered in the affirmative, then the Order must be no wider than is necessary to achieve that objective. Furthermore the restrictions on freedom of movement, of expression, and of assembly and association that would result from the imposition of the exclusion zone must be proportionate.[61]As to the residents and members of the community of the parishes of Newborough and Yoxall, whom Mr Clamp represents pursuant to the order made by Holland J on 24 November 2004, I am not persuaded that the imposition of the proposed exclusion zone can reasonably be regarded as necessary for the protection of their interests for the second of the reasons for refusing Mr Clamp’s application to act for the residents of the further five parishes (see paragraph 57 above).[62]As to the remaining claimants and those whom they represent, it is necessary first to consider the nature and extent of the campaign that has been waged against the Halls. Inspector Bird has drawn up a detailed chronology of incidents, demonstrations and crime reports that he believes to be directly concerned with the campaign conducted against the Halls. The chronology, which is exhibited to his first witness statement, is limited to events between 2 February 2003 and 6 October 2004, a period of 21 months. During that period he has recorded no less than 428 incidents, an average of about five a week. His chronology starts with a hoax explosive device left on the front door step of the home of William Coleman, a friend of the first and second claimants. It concludes with the desecration of the grave of Gladys Hammond, the second claimant’s mother. Her remains were removed from her grave and have yet to be recovered.[63]At paragraphs 9 and 10 of his first witness statement Inspector Bird summarises the campaign in the following terms:
“9. The incidents referred to in paragraph 8 above (The chronology listing 428 incidents), are representative of the animal rights campaign which is being relentlessly conducted against the claimants and which is being directed against a significant number of the surrounding community. In my experience as a police officer, I have never come across a more sinister or cynical campaign of intimidation and harassment. The tactics of the activists are to harass and intimidate individuals whom they consider are sufficiently connected to Darley Oaks Farm, their purpose being to undermine the partnership in every way possible. Individuals who have been selected for targeting include friends, relatives, employees and tenants of the farm, and the suppliers and contractors employed by the partnership. 10. The contractors collecting milk from the farm resigned because of harassment and intimidation directed at them. Recently a small company supplying fuel to the farm had to resign because of intimidation and criminal damage directed at them. Criminal damage was caused to the local golf club. The local public houses have received threatening letters. Members of the community who are connected with the Halls have been targeted. The targeting ranges from threatening letters, the daubing of graffiti, spray painting cars and property, hoax bombs, criminal damage to property principally involving smashed windows and there have been incidents of arson. Many of the attacks take place during the night, the classic attack being either the use of fireworks to cause sleep depravation to those against whom the fireworks are directed or the smashing of windows by throwing bricks.”
[64]In supporting the order sought by the claimants, Inspector Bird continued at paragraph 13:
“I have already stated that this campaign is unprecedented in the degree in levels of harassment and intimidation. The entire community surrounding Darley Oaks Farm is being disturbed and disrupted. We have been very fortunate that up to now, no individual has been severely injured or killed. This is not something that can be taken for granted and if this campaign is left unbridled, it is the concern of Staffordshire Police that it is only a matter of time before someone’s life is directly affected.”
Inspector Bird also produces a large number of documents relating to 74 of the incidents, a selection that he puts forward as representative. They include copies of threatening letters, police reports, and extracts from the websites to which I have already made reference which clearly acknowledge certain of the incidents to be part of the campaign directed by the first defendant.[65]It is necessary to give some examples of the intimidation and harassment to which the Halls, their friends and associates, their employees and their families, their contractors and those who provide them with other services have been subjected in order to demonstrate the nature of the campaign. As to the Halls themselves, they have been subjected to criminal damage, arson attacks, bomb devices, hoax bombs, and written threats to kill. Sally-Anne Hall, the daughter of the first and second claimants, has been the subject of repeated attacks. Her windows have been smashed, red paint thrown at her doors and windows. On one occasion her water supply was turned off and the stopcock cemented up. There have also been hoax bombs left at her house and fireworks in the middle of the night. Sally-Anne Hall has filed a witness statement in which she states that in October 2003 she lost her job because her then employers were not prepared to be subjected to protests directed at her.[66]As to the Halls friends and associates, a number have received threatening letters, including threats to kill. The Branston Golf and Country Club, of which the fourth claimant was a member, has been targeted. In June 2003 there was a day time protest by 35 protestors in an attempt to disrupt a golf tournament. Three protestors, one of who being the twelfth defendant, were arrested and subsequently convicted of aggravated trespass and refusing to leave land when directed. Two weeks later there was a further incident at the Golf Club described in the following terms in the Arkangel for animal liberation website:
“ALF attack at guinea pig breeder’s Golf Club Animal rights activists have attacked at Burton Golf Club at which 9 greens were damaged. Holes were hacked in the greens, slogans were daubed during the attack which took place on the night of Friday 4 July 2003 at Branston Golf and Country Club.”
The website went on to attack the fourth claimant as spokesman for the first claimant as saying that “ … the group hope the demonstrations would encourage golf club management to remove Mr Hall from their membership list.” As a result of these incidents the fourth claimant resigned from the golf club.[67]Ten public houses in the locality have also been targeted with the objective of preventing their use by the Halls. By way of example the Red Lion public house at Newborough used to be frequented by the fourth claimant and his family. On20 February 2003 a letter was received at the public house demanding that the licensee refused to serve the Hall family. In the early hours of 7 October 2004 a large rock was thrown through one of the windows of the public house. On 18 February 2004 a letter was received at the public house alleging that several customers cars had been damaged by paint stripper several days earlier and that unless the Hall family were barred, such intimidation would be directed at the licensee and his family. On 26 February 2004, Marstons brewery, the landlords of the Red Lion, received a letter threatening intimidation of the directors and their families unless the fourth claimants family was barred from the Red Lion. The result was a request from the brewery to the fourth claimant and his family not to use the public house, a request that was reported on the first defendant’s website.[68]The Halls’ employees and their families have been subjected to sustained intimidation and harassment. Their work force is now reduced to two. Again it is not necessary to embark upon a full account of the attacks to which the employees and their families have been subjected. A number of examples will clearly demonstrate the nature of the campaign. The first is an example of a menacing letter addressed to “Hall employees and their families” (File B page 203) – “We, the animal rights militia, have looked on for some years now as peaceful protestors have tried to dissuade you for working for the Halls. We, the Animal Rights Militia, have looked on for some years now as members of animal rights organisations such as the animal liberation front have attacked your property and harassed you. We, the Animal Rights Militia, will look on no further. You have ONE MONTH to announce your resignation before our campaign of personal and serious attack begins. No fancy wording. No veiled threats. No petty criminal damage. No noisy home visits. Just action that will make you suffer as much as those guinea pigs until you leave your job. We are tooled up and ready. ARE YOU? The Animal Rights Militia” The Animal Rights Militia”[69]Secondly May Hudson, who until the 7 January 2005 worked for the first and second claimants in a domestic capacity, has been targeted by the protestors. In her witness statement dated 8 January 2005 she describes thirteen incidents directed either at her or her daughter. Mrs Hudson is a widow in her 60’s. She has been subjected to bricks through her windows, paint bombs, hoax bombs, and on one occasion she was sent “a new home card” giving her new address at Burton Hospital A and E department. On 1 December 2004 paint stripper was poured over her daughter’s car, which had been parked outside the daughter’s home overnight. There has also been a threat to desecrate the grave of Mrs Hudson’s late husband.[70]Nicholas Sanders, who is a farm worker at Darley Oaks Farm, has received threats to kill. On one occasion marbles were placed in the concrete stairway to his flat, presenting a risk of serious injury. On another occasion a hoax bomb was placed beneath his car. He and his partner have received threats to target his partner’s mother. Their neighbours have received malicious mail falsely stating that his partner carried a sexually transmitted disease. His partner’s mother, Christina Dolman, has made a witness statement in which she describes incidents directed at her and her husband. In March 2003 she received a letter instructing her to place a yellow coloured card in the children’s bedroom window to prevent them from getting injured. Two months later the front living room window was smashed in the middle of the night. In May 2004 her neighbours began to receive letters purporting to be from her daughter stating that she was suffering from mental problems. In October 2004 she received a letter containing a white powder which understandably caused her concern that it might be a dangerous substance. She says that these activities have caused both her and her husband “… considerable alarm, fear and stress, as well as deep concern for our safety as well as that of our family.”[71]Another employee, Simon Turner, has suffered damage to his motor vehicle by paint stripper on two occasions. In April 2004 he received an Easter card making allegations of paedophilia. In September 2004 eleven spent shotgun cartridges, each lettered and the letters spelling out his name, were found on the driveway of his house.[72]As to contractors, the campaign directed at Dove fuels, who supplied the partnership, illustrates the lengths to which those involved in the campaign are prepared to go to bring the partnership business to its knees. In March 2003 Dove fuels, who are based at Burntwood, received funeral invitation cards in the recipients name. In November 2003 the company received a letter containing a threat to burgle their premises. In April 2004 the following was posted on the Liberation Now website:
“CRUSH THE COLLABORATORS ACTION ALERT 3 – THE HARVEY FAMILY (DOVE FUELS) Dove fuels (run by the Harvey family) continue to supply fuel essential for the day to day running of the Hall’s evil business empire. The time has come to show these animal abuse collaborators that ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. No more dealing in death with David Hall and partners. In this e-mail alert we remind you of the contact details for Dove fuels and ask that you contact them demanding that they sever all ties with the Halls. We also bring you contact details for a number of companies and individuals associated with the Harvey family and ask that you contact them informing them of the disgraceful business activities of the Harveys. The Harveys are as guilty as the Halls when is comes to animal abuse. They know about the suffering, they take the blood money, they admit they don’t care and they happily live off the suffering and misery of animals in laboratories. When the Harveys sever all ties to the Halls it will be a big blow to these evil guinea pig breeders. The expense of either piping fuel in, calling in a fuel supplier from further afield (no other fuel supplier in Staffordshire will touch Hall) or the shame of having to drive around and fill up tanks themselves from garages and depots will be yet another nail in the coffin of these death merchants.”
The message then went on to give the name address and directors of the British Darts Organisation, of which Rod Harvey is the financial director. On the 7December 2004 the Arkangel website posted the following “The campaign to make Newchurch farm lose their fuel supplier (the only company in Staffordshire willing to supply them with fuel) is well underway. The pressure is on Dove fuels (run by the Harvey family) with home demos, ALF attacks and one member of the Harvey family being campaigned against at her social events NOW IS THE TIME TO PLAY YOUR PART and help put the final pressure needed on to this company to sever its ties with the Halls.”[73]A particularly disquieting episode occurred in July 2003 when the solicitors acting for the Halls were targeted. The incident was reported on the website Liberation Now in the following terms:
“Today 15 protestors stormed into the offices of Shakespeares a solicitors in Birmingham armed with megaphones, airhorns, banners and flyers making their way straight up into the offices and through the keypad doors … . They burst into the offices making loads of noise and telling them that if they did not sever all ties with the Halls that daily demos outside, inside and on top of their offices would commence.”
The solicitors bowed to this pressure and provided a signed and written statement to the effect that they would not be accepting instructions on behalf of David Hall and partners in the future.[74]As I have already indicated, some of the protestors’ activities have had an indirect effect upon the wider community. The use of fireworks and megaphones obviously affects those living in the immediate vicinity of those targeted. But other actions have directly affected others beside those the target of the campaign. On 9 July 2003 a wooden pole supporting an 11,000 volt overhead electricity supply line was sawn through at ground level causing the loss of electricity supplies to 2,140 customers, including the home of Nicholas Sanders, the employee of the partnership to whom reference has already made. Two other poles in the vicinity had also been sewn through. Power was lost for a short period. On 6 February 2004 supplies to 164 customers in the Newchurch area were cut when a wooden pole was sawn through. Power was restored to 164 customers after about 1 ¼ hours, to 8 of the remainder at 3.34 a.m. on the following day and to the final customer at 17.17 on the following day. The “Bite Back” magazine published on the web from an address in Florida USA, posted the following message said to have been received anonymously from activists in the UK:
“David Hall and Partners power lines severed, Newchurch, UK 06/02/04 On Friday evening activists visited Newchurch and blacked out their entire blood-soaked animal molesting business! Power poles bearing electricity cables to Darley Oaks Farm, Newchurch where the animals are being murdered were cut down leaving the whole facility, the family and security guards in a blacked-out confused mess. All of these actions will continue until David Hall and Partners stop torturing these enslaved guinea pigs in the name of profit and power.”
The community at large have also inevitably been affected by large scale graffiti on public road surfaces and on road signs. The damage is clearly illustrated on video film that has been made available to the court.

On Friday evening activists visited Newchurch and blacked out their entire blood-soaked animal molesting business!

[75]It should be emphasised that the incidents summarised above are simply examples of the types of harassment and intimidation that have been used in the campaign directed at the Halls. The full scale of the activities of those involved in the campaign can only be appreciated by a consideration of the evidence in its entirety. The Halls, and those connected with them often at second or third remove, have been subjected to a menacing and prolonged campaign. The unlawful activities summarised above have plainly been intended to terrify the claimants, and those associated with them. The intention is to terrorise. It is no exaggeration to describe the campaign as a form of terrorism.[76]I turn then to the question of whether in the light of the evidence the imposition of the proposed exclusion zone is reasonably to be regarded as necessary for the protection of the Protected Persons’ rights. Mr Dally argues that it is not, and that the imposition of such an exclusion zone would be disproportionate. There are essentially three strands to his argument.[77]First he submits that there is a vast array of public order legislation available to the police, and that many of the powers available to them were designed specifically to deal with protest activity of the kind with which I am concerned. He further submits that as breach of an injunction granted under the Act is a criminal offence (section 3), the effect of the injunction in its proposed form will be to criminalize conduct which is otherwise lawful, and argues that where parliament has legislated specifically to deal with protests of a particular kind, it is an abuse of the process of the court to criminalize protest activity by way of an injunction under the Act. The provisions upon which he relies are - i) Section 42 Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, which gives a constable power to give directions to stop the harassment of a person at his or her home. ii) Section 14 of the Public Order Act 1986,as amended, which empowers a senior police officer to give such directions as to the place at which any public assembly may be held, its maximum duration or the maximum number of persons who may constitute it, as may appear to him to be necessary to prevent disorder, damage, disruption or intimidation. It is a power that has been used regularly by the Staffordshire police in relation to protests held at Darley Oak Farm. iii) Section 68 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 under which the offence of aggravated trespass is committed by a person who trespasses on land, and there does anything intended to have the effect of intimidating persons carrying out a lawful activity, or obstructing or disrupting such activity. iv) Section 30 of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 v) Section 1 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which makes provision for anti social behaviour orders. vi) Police powers at common law to prevent breach of the peace. vii) Sections 2 and 4 of the Protection From Harassment Act 1997 which allow for criminal prosecution where a person has produced a course of conduct causing harassment, alarm or distress to another. He also relies upon the provisions in the Public Order Act 1986 with regard to disorderly conduct and threatening behaviour, and to the fact that it is a criminal offence to commit criminal damage and to send malicious communications.[78]I accept that it is necessary to take account of the powers exercisable by the police. But as is clear from the witness statements of Inspector Bird, the availability of such powers has not enabled the police to prevent the unlawful activities directed at the claimants and their associates. The unlawful activities of the protestors can be described as a guerrilla campaign. They usually take place at night, over a wide area, and directed at a wide range of targets. The reality is that notwithstanding the level of police involvement described by Inspector Bird (see paragraph 46), the police have been unable to prevent unlawful intimidation, harassment, criminal damage and arson. I do not consider that to invoke the jurisdiction of the court under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 amounts to an abuse of process in such circumstances.[79]Secondly, he submits that the claimants will be adequately protected by the continuation of the injunction granted by Hodge J, which save as to matters of detail, he does not oppose on behalf of the defendants. The argument has some force. If the terms of the injunction are respected, the campaign waged by the defendants will be limited to weekly protests of limited duration.[80]Thirdly he argues that the degree of interference with the defendants’ freedom of movement, of assembly and of association would be restricted to a wholly disproportionate degree by the imposition of so extensive an exclusion zone. The imposition of such an exclusion zone would unquestionably be a draconian remedy; but that has to be weighed against the extreme nature of the campaign that has been waged against the claimants. If satisfied that it was necessary for the proper protection of the claimants’ interests, I would not hesitate to impose it.[81]But I bear in mind that the injunctive relief must be no wider than is necessary for the protection of the Protected Persons. I have come to the conclusion that the argument that I consider to be of substance, namely that they will be adequately protected by the continuation of the injunction granted by Hodge J, modified as indicated above, should be put to the test. That is the best way in which to establish its validity. I am not therefore prepared to impose the proposed exclusion zone at this stage. But should the protection afforded by the injunction in the terms in which I propose to extend it, prove inadequate, the matter can be restored. In that event the probable outcome will be the imposition of the exclusion zone. Accordingly the matter is now in the hands of the defendants and the Protestors as defined in the order made by Hodge J.

Cited in 2 later judgments