Campaigners outside the Royal Courts of Justice in London, 19 March 2018. Photo: DrillOrDrop
Five women campaigning against the oil industry in southern England have secured a delay to a wide-ranging injunction that sought to outlaw protests against an exploration company.
The High Court in London adjourned a case today brought by UK Oil and Gas, which aimed to restrict actions against its sites in West Sussex and Surrey.
UKOG had described the injunction as a “standard application” and asked the court to deal with it today. But a senior court official told the company:
“These are very wide-ranging orders to be served and they are exceptional orders.
“They have to be looked at extremely carefully.”
Chief Master Marsh adjourned the case for about six weeks when it will be heard by a High Court judge.
The campaign alliance, Weald Action Group, welcomed the outcome, saying it allowed local people to take stock without the threat of legal action against them.
Prohibition of lawful acts that intend to injure economic interests
The draft orders, issued earlier this month, sought to prohibit lawful acts by campaigners where the “predominant intention” was to injure UKOG’s “economic interests”.
If approved, the orders would prevent activities that breached the criminal law and some that did not. They would establish exclusion zones outside the sites at Broadford Bridge and Markwells Wood in West Sussex and Horse Hill in Surrey where campaign activity would be restricted. They would also prohibit people taking photographs of vehicles belonging to UKOG suppliers.
The orders have been challenged by five women from Sussex and Surrey. Four agreed to become named defendants in the case providing their exposure to UKOG’s costs was capped by the court. The fifth, also a named defendant, is seeking legal aid to fight the case.
Six other people, several of them local to sites where UKOG has an interest, told the court they wished to participate in the case.
One of them, Steve Ross Talbot, said:
“I have come to court to ensure that justice is done”.
Risk of fine or prison
The orders were originally made against “persons unknown”.
But the court heard that if anyone wanted to bring a challenge they would have to become a formal defendant in the case. This could open them to the risk of fines, prison or the seizure of assets if other people defied a future injunction.
Stephanie Harrison QC, representing Ann Stewart, Sue Jameson, Vicki Elcoate and Natasha Doane, said the order should never have been made.
UKOG should, she said, have identified in the draft orders any individuals who had committed unlawful activities listed in the injunction.
She accused UKOG of an “abuse of process”:
“Those who seek to defend lawful conduct, and have no intention of committing unlawful activity and have not done so in the past, have to take all the risk by being named in the procedures.
“This is, in effect, permitting the claimant to start proceedings without properly constituting a claim.”
“Deterred from protesting”
UKOG’s proposed injunction is similar to one granted to the shale gas company, INEOS Upstream.
Ms Harrison said:
“It is becoming the practice to bring procedures against persons unknown. There are going to be concerned individuals who feel that their ability to campaign against and participate in activities will be curtailed so they will be deterred from protesting.”
Constance Whiston, the fifth and youngest defendant outside the High Court, 19 March 2018. Photo: Weald Action Group
Stephen Simlett, for the fifth defendant, Constance Whiston, said:
“If you put your head above the parapet and want to say anything to the court you are exposing yourself to potential liability for damages and costs.”
He said the history of campaigns against UKOG went back several years. There was no evidence that the case should be heard urgently, he said.
Tim Polli, for UKOG, said:
“We take the view that this is a standard application.”
He said:
“It is difficult to see what they [the challengers] have to object to.”
Mr Polli said UKOG had not thought it appropriate to name individuals in the draft order. He said:
“The defendants have self-selected themselves. These are people who are regarded as appropriate defendants. This is the system working as it should.”
UKOG decided to seek an injunction after the occupation by protesters of the Horse Hill oil exploration site in Surrey at the end of November 2017, Mr Polli said.
“They [UKOG] genuinely fear that unlawful acts will be committed in the absence of an injunction.”
He said the company had installed 24-hour security at Horse Hill. It hoped that an injunction would make this unnecessary in future.
UKOG said in a statement last night:
“We do not want to prevent anyone exercising their rights to freedom of assembly, freedom of expression and the right to peaceful protest.
“This injunction is aimed at a small minority of activists who seek to deny our fundamental democratic and legal right to go about our lawful business.”
Consent and access problems at Markwells Wood
Asking for a month to prepare evidence, Ms Harrison said the three oil sites were all different and had to be treated separately.
One, at Markwells Wood, in the South Downs National Park, had no current planning permission and a breach of condition notice had been issued against UKOG, she said. The company no longer had access to the site for certain operations, the court heard.
“Good news”
After the hearing, Jane Mote, a spokesperson for Weald Action Watch, said
“This is very good news for us. It allows us to be able to take stock and deal with very complicated issues without any real threat of an injunction in place. That is just.
“It is good that the judge listened so carefully and thought through the very wide-ranging scope of this injunction and put a pause on it.
“I was pleased that he recognised there are human rights issues, which is what we have argued. More care needs to be taken with the law to stop it being used as a potential tool against lawful protest.
“These orders are so wide-ranging they allow a lot of people’s rights to be taken away and that is not just.
“It makes people feel afraid to have a view, it makes people afraid to take an action and, in a civil democratic society, that is unfair.”
Bianca Jagger with Joe Corre, who is appealing against the INEOS injunction, outside the High Court, 19 March 2018. Photo: Weald Action Group
Before the hearing, the human rights campaigner, Bianca Jagger, told campaigners gathered outside the court:
“I came here to say thank you for the effort you put in every day of your life.
“I believe that you deserve to be celebrated as human rights defenders. You should not be regarded as anything different from the people I support in the remote places of the world. You deserve as much respect and we should be grateful to you for defending our environment.”
More reaction
Brenda Pollack, Friends of the Earth south east England campaigner, said:
“This is great news for local residents, as well as the natural environment. People were shocked that such a development could even be considered inside one of our most precious landscapes.”
“Is it just a coincidence that UKOG’s attempt to use injunctions on anyone exercising their rights to peacefully protest against these developments, has come just as they’ve been told to clear this site?”
“We can’t afford to burn existing fossil-fuel reserves, let alone develop new sites, if we want to avoid the most damaging impacts of climate change.”
Keith Taylor MEP for south east England said today’s decision proved the importance of dedicated and passionate local residents and environmental campaigners:
“The High Court has today thrown a spanner in the works for UKOG and its attack on our human rights and freedom of expression. The firm’s desired injunction would have a chilling effect on the right to lawful protest and campaigning right across the South East. It was only just that the High Court recognised the draconian and wide-ranging bid was anything but ‘standard’ – as UKOG tried to claim.
“The decision to delay, however, means the fight against this chilling and anti-democratic injunction is not over. Residents and campaigners now have little over a month to prepare to take on the financial might of UKOG in the High Court to defend not just their civil liberties but those of all British people. I unreservedly offer them my wholehearted and continuing support.”
“There is nobody who cares about the health of British democracy and human rights who wouldn’t support the campaign against an injunction that seeks to criminalise thousands of South East residents. On my visits to drilling protests across the UK, I have met the warmest, most caring people one can imagine.”
“In a free and democratic country, a company’s economic interests should never supplant citizens’ fundamental human rights. UKOG’s injunction bid is not only practically unenforceable it is also anti-democratic. It presents an obvious and clear breach of the Human Rights Act. It will set a truly frightening precedent if it isn’t rejected out of hand.”
- The decision on whether costs for four of the challengers should be capped will be decided at a hearing on 29 March at the High Court.
Reporting from the High Court hearing was made possible by individual donations from DrillOrDrop readers. You can contribute to independent reporting by DrillOrDrop by clicking here
Categories: Legal
DRILL OR DROP? 
Not as cut and dried as UKOG would have wanted but their arrogance and bullying tactics may well come back to bite them , well done to those wo have put themselves forward to challenge this blatant disregard for human rights and civil liberties .
Well done everybody.
A High court will not be so accommodating of anti democratic attempts to turn an entire country into unwilling slaves.
The fracking debacle house of cards is collapsing.
“One, at Markwells Wood, in the South Downs National Park, had no current planning permission and a breach of condition notice had been issued against UKOG, she said. The company no longer had access to the site for certain operations, the court heard” I guess that clears up any doubt as to the validity of the notice issued to UKOG by SDNP then..
Mere appeasement. Injunction will inevitably go ahead.
At least it means UKOG will get 6 weeks of peace, and the buzzards can nest without interruption. But, can the antis moderate their behaviour for 6 weeks? Will be interesting.
If this injunction does get awarded, it is a gloves are off situation . They will be opening the door to far more severe and undercover activism; If you can then get into serious trouble for waving a placard, or taking a photograph, why not get better value [edited by moderator] . I do hope these greedy selfish oil addicts get hoisted by their own petard. WE SAID NO. We are the majority.
Why don’t you put your full name out there Arthur? Is it perhaps because you are advocating criminal activity and could yourself be charged for this post (and, if followed through, would guarantee that these four brave ladies are fined the maximum for volunteering to be defendants, but would in the future be responsible for YOUR criminal actions). [Edited by moderator]
You are a minority made up of hooligans, NIMBYs, homeless people, tax dodgers, lost souls, communists, Google wannabees, anti government activists and naive individuals that don’t live in the real word such as people that don’t leave the education system and always vote left wing.
I represent the silent majority and people like me will make sure you’re never allowed to dictate the direction of this country as you simply aren’t capable.
Go ahead and make your empty threats, you scare no one. And by doing so you are simply giving us more power via the courts.
enjoy!
Thank you for your comment starting,
‘You are a minority made up of hooligans, NIMBYs, homeless people, tax dodgers, lost souls, communists’,…….
I can now safely say that these comments prove that those defending the floundering UK shale industry have no idea whatsoever on what has been going on over the last eight years.
Let’s give it one more go
In 2010 the first shale gas applications were passed unopposed
It is now 2018
The industry has produced no gas in those eight years and is now being battered daily by well organised communities.
If that isn’t convincing enough let’s remind ourselves how many applications have been passed out of the 8 that have been submitted this year
The answer is 1
What power and strength you command !
And lest you forget, this is before the industry has even tried in vain to get going.
Good headline.
‘minority made up of hooligans, NIMBYs, homeless people, tax dodgers, lost souls, communists’
Pummels
Isolated floundering UK shale gas scammers.
Bless, but sadly misinformed. Actually one of the silent majority who don’t fall into any of your numerous categories.
Good stuff GBK….we cannot simply allow these Kremlin’s agent and eco lunatic bring the whole morden Western civilization to its knee with their communist agenda.
For the avoidance of doubt:
‘The Sunday Times reported that Russian oligarchs and their associates had registered donations of £826,100 to the Tories since Theresa May entered No 10.’
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/mar/11/litvinenko-widow-warns-tories-over-russian-donations
Be careful which glasshouse you throw stones in TW.
If you want to be in Contempt of Court, Arthur, that is your choice, but inciting others to do that [edited by moderator] may get you an even greater sentence. Again, that is your choice, but don’t then blame someone else for your choice-I suspect it would not work.
These fracking invaders intend to impose slavery and offer nothing but contempt for every man woman and child in this country.
The only courts that exist in slave states are secret kangaroo courts like in Stalinist Russia. That is what this and other injunctions will impose on this country, imposed by little tin pot gods puffed up with their own outrageous totalitarian egos.
This is not business, it is a declaration of war.
If you sow the wind, you will reap the whirlwind.
The enemies of every man woman and child are inside the gates and our courts and are attempting to overturn democracy.
There is no interim injunction therefor business as usual , I see GottabeFibbing adding his usual worthless comment .
If I, & “persons unknown” , set out to block the Weald Action Group’s access to their meetings by slow walking etc would they uphold my right to “peacefully protest” in a similar manner to themselves? It’s a simple question.
I see you hit a nerve, GBK. I wonder which of your categories was too close to home?
It was this MC…..
‘I represent the silent majority and people like me will make sure you’re never allowed to dictate the direction of this country as you simply aren’t capable.’ – am afraid narcissistic commenting is not appreciated on this blog; everything else was ‘sticks and stones’; bless
p.s can someone inform the call centre that 16% is not a majority and that silent means no talking ….good god he’s here again, down boy..
🙂