Protest outside UKOG’s Broadford Bridge site in West Sussex. Photo: Broadford Bridge Action Gropu
The human rights campaigner Bianca Jagger, actor Sue Jameson and entrepreneur Joe Corre are supporting residents challenging an injunction sought by UK Oil and Gas this morning.
The oil exploration company is going to the High Court in London to seek an order restricting protests outside sites in Sussex and Surrey.
A group of residents is expecting to challenge the injunction, arguing that it breaches their human rights.
The draft order, published earlier this month, would prevent lawful acts by campaigners where the “predominant intention” was to injure the company’s “economic interests”.
Opponents of UKOG’s activities fear this could stop them organising events, handing out leaflets and distributing information online.
The order would also prevent people taking photographs of suppliers’ vehicles and establishes exclusion zones outside the sites at Broadford Bridge and Markwells Wood in West Sussex and Horse Hill in Surrey.
The company issued a statement last night saying it was “fully supportive of people’s democratic right to lawful and peaceful protest outside our gates or premises.” It said:
“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. Recent actions by activists that have forced us to seek this injunction include forcible entry and illegal occupation of our Horse Hill site, criminal and environmental damage, threatening behaviour and assault of our site staff and contractors.” (for more of UKOG’s statement see final section)
The draft injunction order is against “persons unknown” and includes actions which are covered by criminal offences. It also mentions the common protest tactic of “slow walking”, which is sometimes facilitated by police and has resulted in both acquittals and convictions when cases come to court.
Protest at Broadford Bridge, West Sussex. Photo: Broadford Bridge Action Group
“Shires of England are rising up”
Weald Action Group, an alliance of campaigners in southern England, said last night:
“The shires of England are rising up to protect a way of life being threatened by UKOG.
“This injunction would have a chilling effect on lawful protest and campaigning right across the South East.
“UKOG have admitted that ‘this kind of oil deposit very much depends on being able to drill your wells almost back to back’ – they have admitted that their plan is to industrialise our landscape. Campaign groups must remain free to raise awareness of this threat.”
The group said the challenge to UKOKG was supported by human rights organisations, the Green Party, Friends of the Earth, the Labour Party and Greenpeace. Residents from across Surrey, Sussex and the North of England are expected to be outside the court.
Sue Jameson presenting a petition last week to the Environment Agency against oil drilling near Leith Hill. Photo: DrillOrDrop
Actor Sue Jameson, who lives close to the Broadford Bridge site, said:
“Our way of life is being threatened by this company – not only do they plan to industrialise the countryside and risk polluting our water but also they want to take away our right to speak out about it. I believe the judge will see sense and throw this out.”
Bianca Jagger, President and Chief Executive of the Bianca Jagger Human Rights Foundation (BJHRF) called at the weekend for UKOG to withdraw its application for an injunction. She said:
“I am appalled that residents of South East England, are being threatened with intimidation and censorship for speaking out against the potentially irreversible damage to their way of life, to their water sources, to the air, and their environment by unconventional drilling operations.”
“Copycat injunction”
Joe Corre, founder of Agent Provocateur, is challenging a similar interim injunction awarded to another exploration company, INEOS Shale. He said:
“This application for an injunction from UKOG is a copycat of the INEOS injunction with added bells and whistles. Make no mistake this is a full frontal assault on our fundamental human rights to protest.
“The fact they are bringing these applications in the chancery division of the High Court which normally deals with contract disputes and does not have experience of dealing with human rights issues shows how these Companies are gaming the legal system and showing contempt for the law. We will not be intimidated.”
Injunction notice at Markwells Wood
“Sweeping nature is extraordinary”
Weald Action Grop said the residents’ challenge is being supported by Netpol’s Activists Legal Action Fund and brought on behalf of campaigners and will be represented by civil rights lawyer Michael Oswald and his team at Bhatt Murphy solicitors.
Kevin Blowe of Netpol said:
“The sweeping nature of the injunction is extraordinary. By seeking to prevent any interference with UKOG’s “economic interests” – a term that could mean almost anything – the company seems to suggest that the only “acceptable” protests are those that have no cost impact on its business and no effect on its share price.
“Anything else risks the potential threat of expensive legal action against local campaigners, even if they are “combining together using lawful means”, something that is a fair description of how every campaign group has ever operated.”
David Abrahams, lawyer for Friends of the Earth, added:
“This proposed injunction is a serious attack on the rights of local people to protest and campaign against oil and gas operations. It is completely unacceptable for lawful activities such as taking photographs and gathering outside sites to be included within the scope of an injunction.”
“Oil interests at expense of democratic rights”
Dr Damien Short, Director: Human Rights Consortium, School of Advanced Study, University of London, said:
‘It seems that the unconventional resource extraction industry in the UK, with the help of the courts, is seeking to expand the traditional approach in English law, namely that injunction proceedings must start against a named defendant.
“Companies are apparently seeking to protect their own interests at the expense of the people’s democratic human rights to peaceful assembly and expression.
“This is deeply worrying. In an era when the public appears to be more concerned than politicians and the extractive industries about the imminent threat of runaway climate change, people’s democratic rights to resist the continued expansion of the fossil fuel industry must be protected. I hope sense prevails and the courts start refusing such draconian, undemocratic, sweeping injunctions.’
Vicki Elcoate, of A Voice for Leith Hill, said:
“By barring lawful action it shuts down participation in the democratic process. That is unreasonable and unfair. It would also potentially stop us organising events, handing out leaflets, disseminating information online etc. Saying it’s draconian is probably an understatement”.
Occupation of Horse Hill oil site in Surrey, November 2017. Photo: Horse Hill Protection Camp
“Injunction is fully democratic and just process”
UKOG added in its statement:
“We believe that whilst some persons may have strongly held views about the role of oil and gas in our society, this is no justification for them to employ unlawful means to deny UKOG the right to conduct lawful business in safety and without damage to its lawful operations, the licence for which was granted by the Government.
“Contrary to some views expressed recently, this injunction application is a fully democratic and just process in that the ruling will be made solely upon the evidence provided by all parties and without prejudice to any party, no matter what their beliefs or motives may have been. The law applies equally to all persons and parties.
“We seek the Court’s ruling and protection only from those activists who seek to deny us our fundamental right to conduct lawful business. They do that through a variety of unlawful actions, including unlawful trespass on our land, interfering unlawfully with access to our land, unlawfully obstructing the highway (including by slow-walking, lock-ons and lorry surfing), to obstruct, threaten or interfere with our staff and contractors and by unlawful “legal means conspiracy” where the predominant purpose is to injure UKOG and or its contractors. “
Hearing details
The hearing is due to start at 10.30am, at the Rolls Building, Fetter Lane, London EC4A 1NL. It is scheduled to last for two-and-a-half hours.
Categories: Legal
DRILL OR DROP? 
“Injunction is fully democratic and just process”
Wasn’t that what the slave traders and apartheid proponents advocated?
Legality is not the question, it’s the question of whether one set of established interests have the right to overturn an entire countries human rights just to profit from the resulting anti democratic police state.
The danger of freedom, is that the very operation of the democratic processes can be high jacked by unscrupulous agencies and turned against the entire population.
That is why constant vigilance is required and also why wars happen.
Lack of vigilance and awareness of the darker forces that rise from the established self serving power bases always lead to confrontations such as this.
The entire fracking debacle has provided us with just such an alarm bell for the forces that seek to overturn an entire country, just to get to pollute and profit from perceived weaknesses.
This is the most important issue of the modern age, don’t be distracted from it by international events, the real invaders are right here in boardrooms and brown envelope lobbies.
[Typo corrected at poster’s request]
So why include ‘lawful’ activity in the actual injunction. Make your mind up. What about intimidation by private investors with threats to life and common assault. Maybe we need to take out an injuncturn on them.
More seriously soil fertility decreasing globally. We need to protect all agricultural land from contamination or this country won’t be able to feed itself.
If the injunction is aimed at a few people then there is no need to make it a blanket injunction , there are already laws in place to cover illegal acts , UKOG do not make their own laws up , they just make up rubbish to cover their failures . Let’s do this !!
This is todays Ian R Cranes video report on this attack on freedom and democracy.
( https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=em-lbcastemail&v=Q8Bp_PG41QU )
This attempted UKOG injunction is the worst danger that this country has faced since the 1930’s and it has come from within the gates, sanctioned by our own supposed government, and as such it should be treated accordingly.
Let’s hope the court see sense and upholds the application.
Everyone has a right to defend their business and operation which has been legally granted by government.
Crikey, the ‘call centre’ has invested in more handles….now I wonder who’s operating this sock puppet?
Paula-this country does not feed itself, sorry to burst your bubble. We were not able to do that even during WW2, hence the convoys from all around the world.
We have a large majority of our population that desires French beans to be flown into Gatwick (and other airports) during the winter from places such as Kenya, and for their winter courgettes to be trucked up from Spain-all facilitated by good old fossil fuels.
I don’t think you will persuade the population to return to the Stone Ages, which was probably about the last time this country fed itself. Anyway, the bats would now have priority in the few remaining caves.
Grumpy’s back.
Oh you are so wrong Martin on many levels. UK does produce food I see it growing all around me. There is a developing global soil infertility crisis with 60-100 harvest years left. So instead of pollution we need to work together to feed ourselves. Why aren’t investors worried about water and food?
Supporters of UKOG could go around to the homes of the objectors, unveil banners, stop traffic and block access to the homes for all deliveries etc.. If the law agrees damaging a company by intimidation is lawful, then surely the same applies in reverse.
If a company is damaged by people telling the truth about it’s actions, (such as the way it’s CEO fleeces its gullible investors, breaches operating permits and damages it’s own cement bond) then the company is obviously worthy of criticism, investigation and suspension!
Goodness Paula, of course UK produces some food, but it is a long way from feeding itself. Take a look in any UK market/supermarket and then please let us know where in the UK we are currently producing French beans or courgettes, let alone bananas? The UK imports a huge percentage of it’s food, because that is what the population want-the out of season variety, and the wider choice. To achieve that, fossil fuels are utilised to bring it to UK. You can moan as much as you want that should be excluded but that’s what the public demand.
When you try and change the reality of what actually happens daily within the country to suit your own argument it is interesting but somewhat fictional.
I do laugh at the double standards once again shown by the antis. They preach constantly about tax and offshore money. I suggest they start looking into the finances of their ‘leader’ Joe Corre. Check the link with offshore private equity and the mammoth levels of debt created by this individual all at the British tax payers expense. [Edited by moderator]
In direct response to today, I hope the HC upholds the injunction to stamp out the nonsense perpetrated by the band of brothers. UKOG could also use the line of their human rights. These cheap tags don’t wash with anyone that’s got a brain. It’s not about the little guy versus the big guy it’s about wealthy liberals from London leading a bunch of Googlers against wealth generating capitalism.
snoring