Legal

Updated: Two campaigners seek appeals against INEOS fracking protest injunction

Joe Corre 3

Joe Corre. Photo: Richard Hillgrove

Two anti-fracking campaigners are seeking appeals over the injunction granted to INEOS Shale against anti-fracking protests.

Joe Boyd and Joe Corre, the son of fashion designer Vivienne Westwood, challenged the injunction at the High Court.

But last month Mr Justice Morgan ruled that much of the injunction should remain in force.

The legal teams for both men have now submitted requests to appeal against the ruling.

INEOS sought the original injunction in July at a private hearing,. It presented several thousand pages of evidence to support its argument that it faced “a real and imminent risk” of being targeted by unlawful protests.

Mr Corre and Mr Boyd challenged the injunction, describing the order as “unprecedented”, “draconian” and a “breach of human rights”. They argued in court that it was unnecessary and based on “flimsy” evidence that over-stated or misrepresented the risk.

Joe Boyd

Anti-fracking campaigner, Joe Boyd.

Explaining the reason for the appeal, Mr Boyd said:

“The High Court ruling will mean that individuals will be in contempt of court if they engage in a variety of different forms of protests, which have not previously been held to be unlawful in all circumstances. An arrest for breach of this injunction could result in a prison sentence of up to two years and/or a fine up to £5,000.”

Mr Corre said:

“These are very serious concerns for all of us and our human rights in terms of the right to protest and the right to defend ourselves from some of these extremely draconian, bullying practices from corporations such as INEOS”.

Mr Corre added:

“We have to wait for Justice Morgan to either grant that Appeal in which case we will go straight into the queue at the Appeals court or if he will not grant the Appeal then we will have to ask the Appeal court themselves and that will take a little bit longer.”

DrillOrDrop invited INEOS to comment on the appeal. The company said it repeated its comment made at the time of the ruling by Mr Justice Morgan. Operations Director, Tom Pickering, said:

“Our people have the right to go to work free from fear of violence and unlawful interference. These injunctions simply protect INEOS and our people from hardcore activists who game the system and treat the law with contempt. Crucially they also protect the rights of people to lawfully, peacefully protest.”

Injunction details

The injunction order is directed against “persons unknown” and prohibits them from interfering with the lawful activities of INEOS staff and contractors. People who breached the order risk prison or having their assets seized.

Mr Justice Morgan removed the part of the original order against harassment of INEOS employees or contractors.

But he maintained the injunction against two protest techniques used by anti-fracking campaigners: slow walking in front of deliveries and climbing on top of vehicles, known as lorry surfing.

The slow walking clause was a key issue during the court hearings. Some police forces regularly facilitate slow walking protests at fracking sites. Campaigners have been acquitted of allegedly obstructing the highway during these protests.

DrillOrDrop reports

Breaking news on the injunction ruling and reaction

What the judge said in his ruling on INEOS fracking protest injunction

Campaigners explain why they will fight on against INEOS fracking protest injunction

 

16 replies »

  1. Has Justice Morgan applied costs yet from the last ruling?

    My local will not serve you a round until you have paid for the last one!

    On a separate subject, but seeing Ruth’s tweet re NT, she has not added the letter asking how the 500,000 visitors arrived at Clumber Park! Perhaps they will sacrifice their visitors to prevent “burning fossil fuels”? So, they end up with no income from visitors-interesting.

    • It is beneath intelligent debate to accuse those that oppose fracking of being hypocrites because they use vehicles powered by fossil fuels. Alternatives such as hybrid and electric vehicles are becoming more popular but are prohibiavley expensive for many. The technology is developing but at the moment consumers do not always have a choice. That will change and the purchase cost will fall. Rather like not everyone could afford a mobile phone or computer when they first entered the market now most people have both. The strong public support for renewables is proof enough that the public want clean energy. And the dreadful air pollution we have in the U.K. proves we need it and sooner rather than later. Not to mention the impact from climate change. Well done the National Trust.

    • Not by fracked gas!! But you do encourage me to seriously look at electric run cars, as battery storage is coming into play, and oh it’s so cheap!!!

  2. I agree, Joe Corre and Joseph Boyd are perfectly correct in fighting the case in appeal.
    A secret court injunction, the very terms of which are secret must not ever be allowed to overturn UK law and rights of protest or we will all be reduced to mere slaves to TPD corporations.

  3. No issues with an appeal that is his right to do so however, the appeal will definitely not be successful in this case. He is a very wealthy guy from private equity monies so he can afford to lose.

        • And of course Ian R Cranes video today, this question is vitally important fo all of us however we feel individually about this industry.

          We should ask ourselves why big corporations are buying up the water rights all over the planet, and why they are doing their gutmost to destroy the natural purity of our water supply here and across the world.

          Now do you understand?

  4. So, KatT, you have asked all those 500,000 who visit Clumber Park, and they have told you they oppose fracking?? What were you saying about intelligent debate??

    I own a hybrid vehicle-unlike many of the antis. If I travelled to Clumber Park (I won’t, as I have already visited and was not overly impressed), the battery would be exhausted after around 10% of the journey. The remainder would be by fossil fuel, and the return leg, all by fossil fuel. That is the reality. I know reality is difficult for the antis but try it sometime and you might find the real world.

    • We are all hypocrites. That’s not the point. The point is that fossil fuel extraction must stop or we destroy human civilisation. This is urgent. Haven’t you listened to the Paris Accord? the whole world knows that we must stop new fossils. Whether or not people have hybrids or bicycles is something to discuss afterwards. You are arguing about which fire hydrant to use instead of working together to put out the fire.

  5. The idea of an appeal is excellent as I believe this will be a catalyst to make the injunction permanent. Own goal?

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