Legal

Cuadrilla fracking protest trial – 12 guilty of obstruction but cleared on trades union charges

170703 pnr Kirsten Buus for Reclaim the Power

Lock-on protest outside Cuadrilla’s shale gas site at Preston New Road, 3 July 2017. Photo: Kirsten Buus

12 people, including three councillors, have been found guilty of obstructing the highway after a lock-on protest outside Cuadrilla’s shale gas site in July. But they were cleared of trades union charges which can carry a more serious penalty.

The verdict, given by District Judge Jeff Brailsford, this morning followed a trial earlier this week at Blackpool Magistrates Court.

The protesters included Lancashire County Councillor Gina Dowding, Fylde Borough Councillor Julie Brickles and Kirkham Town Councillor Miranda Cox.

They were joined in the lock-on by Sara Boyle, Barbara Cookson, Nick Danby, Daniel Huxley-Blythe, Catherine Jackson, Michelle Martin, Alana McCullough, Jeanette Porter and Nick Sheldrick. All 12, some of whom live near the Preston New Road site, denied the offences against them.

They were each given a 12-month conditional discharge and ordered to pay costs and surcharge totalling £270.

The court had heard evidence that the protesters locked themselves together outside Cuadrilla’s site on Preston New Road at about 3am on 3 July 2017.

Eight of the group were released and arrested between about 11.30am and 5.30pm. The remainder, except for Miss Martin, were arrested that evening. Miss Martin was arrested the following day.

In his verdict, District Judge Brailsford said there needed to be a balance between the rights of the protesters and other people. He said thousands of local people had been inconvenienced by traffic delays.

“I look at the alternative actions that those protesters could have taken up – breaking off earlier, self-releasing. They did none of those things. The disruption continued for hours. My issue therefore is whether that was unreasonable or whether there was lawful excuse for the extent and duration of the protest.

“There were, I am satisfied, other measures open to these defendants which they did not take. The consequences of their intransigence was obstruction to the highway which was in my judgement overall unarguably unreasonable.

“For those reasons and on the evidence presented I find that each of these defendants is guilty of the charged offence of obstructing the highway.”

The judge the duration of a protest was not “all-determinative”. But he said:

“I have previously offered the view eight hours was “at the very outer edge of what might be capable of being accepted as being ‘reasonable’, particularly where the protest had been facilitated for over four hours by that time.”

The protesters had also been charged under section 241 of the Trades Union and Labour Relations Consolidation act.

On this charge, Judge Brailsford said because the protest was on the highway there had been no trespass on Cuadrilla’s land. He also said the company had not provided evidence that its operation had been hindered.

“I see no evidence of civil wrong.

“I do not know whether, for example, any delivery was scheduled for that day, what such delivery might have been, and how it would form part of Cuadrilla’s work or working practices.”

He said it would have been “fairly simple” to get this evidence.

“I am in no doubt, in those circumstances, that the Crown has failed to prove the elements of the S241 offence to the requisite standard. That charge in relation to each defendant is accordingly dismissed.”

Reaction

Green Party councillor, Gina Dowding, said after the verdict:

“Shale gas is neither needed nor wanted. The UK government’s commitment to go all out for shale and impose this on the British people, and particularly to impose the risks on the people of Lancashire, is nothing short of perverse.

“The biggest risk to our local and national interest is that of climate change:  it is the overriding national issue. I was driven to take direct action to raise publicity and persuade our national politicians to act now to try and prevent it.”

Retired civil servant, Nick Danby, made this statement:

“Speaking directly to the fracking industry, its supporters and apologists: you will never have the social license here or anywhere. You will meet sustained resistance.

“You are not welcome and we will do all that we can to protect our friends and families, our homes and our communities. And to those that invest in this industry – pull out now – you will never get your money back.”

Updated 18/11/2017 to correct impression that all the campaigners involved in the trial lived near the Preston New Road shale gas site

11 replies »

  1. So, “watching and besetting” is not a legal charge against protesters, and hence is not an arrestable offence.
    I wonder what trumped up offence will be dreamt up to replace that?

    • ‘In his verdict, District Judge Brailsford said there needed to be a balance between the rights of the protesters and other people.’

      I understand this perspective, but it was not the ‘thousands’ who brought this action against these people.

      ‘He said thousands of local people had been inconvenienced by traffic delays.’

      I do hope Judge Brailsford does not find himself behind a convoy of lorries visiting or returning from a shale gas site, on his way to work, day in day out…….

  2. The language used by the judge shows just how weak the courts are. Stop being scared to set an example so this nonsense is put to rest. A lot of the local judges think these antis represent something larger than they actually do.

  3. They do actually (represent something larger) GBK – a nationwide disapproval (on balance) of the fracking drive and a hope that it will not go ahead. Btw do you actually represent anything larger than your own opinions as expressed on this sight? Time to come clean.

    • A load of baloney Phillip. Scotland is about to lose Bifab, 1000 jobs in the ‘renewable’ industry. Once the masses start to learn more about the green con the more we’ll see common sense prevail.

    • Are you taking to comedy writing now GBK? Exactly what bit of BiFab’s dispute with SeaWay Heavy Lifting (serving mainly offshore O&G) has anything to do with going green? In fact they have stated their wish to expand services in the renewables sector… to quote “The management team has recognised that the skill base that exists within the company is ideally suited to the type of fabrication work that is required within the renewables energy sector, particularly when it comes to providing solutions for offshore wind, wave and tidal projects. “

  4. GBK, the Judge did set an example. The Prosecution’s case was weak and failed to provide the most basic evidence. Police and Prosecutors continually try and use inappropriate legislation and are running out of ideas. The Courts have more serious cases to get on with. What is the penalty in your home State for ‘besetting’? It is probably unlikely to even be a crime.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s