Six women challenge UKOG in court tomorrow: Constance Whiston, Vicki Elcoate, Ann Stewart, Sue Jameson, Jacqui Hamlin and Natasha Doane
Six women from Sussex and Surrey are going to court tomorrow to challenge an injunction seeking to outlaw protests against oil drilling near their homes.
The challengers, who include the actor Sue Jameson, will argue at the High Court in London that the injunction interferes with their human rights to freedom of expression and has a chilling effect on campaigning.
The oil company, UKOG, which applied for the injunction, has denied it wants to prevent anyone exercising their rights to freedom of assembly, freedom of expression or peaceful protest.
It has described the injunction as a standard application. At an earlier hearing, UKOG’s barrister, Tim Polli, said
“It is difficult to see what they [the challengers] have to object to.”
The original injunction order applied to exploration sites at Broadford Bridge and Markwells Wood in West Sussex and Horse Hill in Surrey, as well as UKOG offices in Guildford. Since then the company has removed Markwells Wood from the order.
If approved, the order would prevent activities that breached the criminal law and some that did not. It would establish exclusion zones outside the sites where campaign activity would be restricted. It would also prohibit people taking photographs of vehicles belonging to UKOG suppliers.
People who breached the injunction could be found in contempt of court and be fined, imprisoned or have their assets seized.
DrillOrDrop asked the six women why they had decided to challenge the injunction.
Natasha Doane
Occupation: Therapist
Where do you live?: Dorking
Which is the nearest UKOG site to your home? Leith Hill. Horse Hill is 8 miles
Why are you taking part in the challenge? I am concerned that the injunction, if granted, would be likely to have a serious deterrent effect on local people being able to continue campaigning in opposition to UKOG’s activities. From reading the injunction, it is very difficult to understand what is covered by the description of “persons unknown” and how previously legal acts could in the future be considered “illegal” and in what conditions this would come into effect, and what the consequences would be.
In effect, this is a silencing order on the general public who show genuine concern for the environment and the future implications on their community.
Vicki Elcoate
Occupation: Green campaigner
Where do you live? Dorking, Surrey
Which is the nearest UKOG site to your home? Leith Hill where UKOG has a 40% stake, then Horse Hill
Why are you taking part in the challenge? The right to peaceful protest must be defended. UKOG wants to silence protest against onshore oil and gas which threatens our climate, our water and our countryside. Local communities must be able to stand up for what they believe and use lawful means to express their views. I’m not prepared to stand by and let this draconian injunction come into effect without putting up a fight.
Why do you oppose oil exploration in the Weald? There are big reasons – like climate change which mean we must keep fossil fuels in the ground and move quickly towards an energy future based on low carbon. There are public health reasons like the risk to our drinking water from acidisation which will be used to extract the tight oil at commercial levels. And I’m passionate about our countryside and what it means to people – peace, beauty and freedom from industrial activity. Onshore oil and gas threatens all of that.
What do you think will happen if UKOG’s injunction is allowed? People will keep on campaigning peacefully and lawfully against onshore oil and gas. The industry is already in trouble with falling share prices and bail outs. This isn’t an industry with a sustainable future in any sense of the word. It seems very unlikely that they will achieve their aim of “back to back wells across the Weald” with or without injunctions to help them. They are just wasting their money on unnecessary legal costs.
Jacqui Hamlin
Where do you live? Dorking
Which is the nearest UKOG site to your home? Leith Hill (called Holmwood by UKOG)
Why are you taking part in the challenge? I passionately believe people should have freedom to protest, especially if they are concerned about what is happening in their local communities. If people are protesting we need a discussion, not a corporate steamroller. We’re not living in North Korea. UKOG have raised this injunction to try to ensure that no protest gets in the way of their ‘economic interests’ , irrespective of the environmental and ecological interests of the residents in the communities where they’re drilling
Why do you oppose oil exploration in the Weald? I really don’t think it’s necessary anywhere. Here’s an article from Jeff Zie (pdf) explaining why
What do you think will happen if UKOG’s injunction is allowed? An immediate appeal will be necessary if we don’t want corporate greed to walk all over democracy.
Sue Jameson
Occupation: Actor/writer
Where do you live? I live in the Billingshurst area.
Which is the nearest UKOG site to your home? Broadford Bridge is the nearest site – but my concern is with the whole of the Weald, the UK and, indeed, our planet.
Why are you taking part in the challenge? I am representing members of KKWG (Keep Kirdford and Wisborough Green), KBFF (Keep Billingsdhurst Frack Free), the Weald Action Group and many local residents. We could find that our voice is taken away, and our freedom to share our thoughts and concerns is lost. It’s a matter of democratic human rights. If this injunction is imposed, these rights could be seriously curtailed and/or removed under threat of arrest.
Ann Stewart
Occupation: Ann Stewart. Retired Deputy Headteacher.
Where do you live? About a mile from the Markwells Wood site, near Rowlands Castle.
Which is the nearest UKOG site to your home? Markwells Wood
Why are you taking part in the challenge?
Markwells Wood was part of the original injunction application. We were amazed and outraged. The original injunction included banning legal activities if they affected the oil company’s economic interests. Our campaign was to stop them drilling at Markwells Wood, so of course it would affect their economic interests. However, our intention was to stop the industrialisation of this particularly peaceful part of the South Downs National Park and to protect our local amenities, especially our aquifer, which is an important source for Portsmouth Water. This injunction would, in effect, have made any campaigning illegal. It looked as if the company was trying to use the courts to change the law and severely restrict any rights to protect the countryside. The fact that the injunction was against “persons unknown” was also very disturbing, as this means everyone who is willing to object.
The evidence UKOG presented in their injunction application portrayed us as radical protesters. They used carefully chosen images of aggressive confrontations at sites, mainly fracking sites in the North of England. Although I sympathise with the brave activists willing to risk this kind of treatment, it contrasts with our pathetically genteel campaign at Markwells Wood. Our campaigning has consisted of lots of letters and emails, meetings in village halls, one very cheerful demonstration in front of Portsmouth Town Hall, a tea party and stall at a village fete. We also set up placards in the area with the messages “Protect out National Park” and “Protect our water”
After the first hearing UKOG revised much of the injunction, presumably because they could see how extreme their initial injunction was. They also took Markwells Wood off the injunction on the grounds that “operationally it has ceased to be of importance”. In fact, they had just received a Breach of Condition notice requiring them to clear the site within six months and to restore the woodland within a year. They had also told the court that they had all the access permissions they needed to get to the site. In that week, it emerged that this was not true, and that they had lost access about six months ago. Clearly it would be to their advantage if the issue of Markwells Wood quietly faded away.
Moreover, UKOG were still telling their shareholder in the annual report and their RNSs, and at their shareholders meeting that they were working on a new application and that they were in consultation with the relevant agencies. We had confirmation through FoI requests that they had not contacted either Portsmouth water, the Environment Agency or the SDNPA. So, on the principle that “it ain’t over till it’s over” I decided to remain one of the defendants. Although I think UKOGs claim that they will re-apply to drill at Markwells Wood is just posturing for the sake of their shareholders, any injunction would probably restrict us if we did have to campaign at some future date.
Why do you oppose oil exploration in the Weald?
My initial reason was simply on climate change grounds, and this is not just about the Weald, but oil exploration generally. We have used up all the easily available oil, and what is left is difficult to exploit. Markwells Wood has, what is described as, tight oil reserves. Put simply, it will take a lot of energy, and therefore a lot of greenhouse gas emissions to access the oil, and this will be before a drop of oil can be used. Moreover, it allows us to “carry on as usual” with our policy of using our carbon resources in a wasteful and profligate manner.
As I got involved in the campaign many more concerns became apparent. I became aware of the impact it would have on local biodiversity. One of the special features of this part of the National Park is the number of ancient woodlands and the network of trees and hedges that link them. This network is vital to the many vulnerable species of our increasingly threatened wildlife. In this area, this network is being increasingly broken up by housing developments and the associated infrastructure. In the area around Markwells Wood there are records of 12 of the 18 species of British bats, including two of the rarest British mammals, Bechsteins and Barbastelles bats. Both are highly dependent on the network of trees and hedges. Both have the highest levels of wildlife protection. There are also records of numerous RSPB red list species of birds as well as Schedule 1 protected bird species.
The planning objections made by both Portsmouth Water and the Environment Agency alerted me to the danger to the important aquifer under Markwells Wood. Our group commissioned a report from a hydrogeologist, which showed that the local geology is not been fully understood, and that there is evidence that it should be considered a Source Protection Zone 1. This report makes some serious challenges to the hydrogeological evidence submitted by UKOG in their planning application.
I also became aware of the problems associated with acidisation, the stimulation technique that UKOG intended to use at Markwells Wood. UKOG publicly stated that this was the same technique used by water companies. In fact, water companies use an “acid wash” to clear their wells, and use this in chalk, where the acid becomes neutralised. For obvious reasons the levels of these activities have to be very safe. There are other, more invasive acidisation techniques, including matrix acidisation and acid fracking. UKOG gave contradictory statements about which they intend to use. They failed to mention that their acidisation would take place in different rock strata, not chalk, and that they would release, and need to dispose of, some toxic salts and possibly some naturally occurring radioactive materials.
Other issues were the effect of industrial traffic on our very rural roads and the possible health consequences of the acidisation for people living in the area.
What do you think will happen if UKOG’s injunction is allowed?
Like many people just the thought of this injunction made me very nervous. I did not know what the implications are for me. Surely, if an action is illegal, it is illegal. Why is some extra measure needed? Does this mean I can be prosecuted for actions that I have always assumed are perfectly legal? I think this would be the case for many people. Many people are already nervous about coming forward and making a public stand for the things they hold dear. An injunction, the full implications of which they are likely not to understand, are likely to deter them further. It curtails their right to object partly because of the conditions in the injunction, but also because of the level of uncertainty created by the mere fact that an injunction exists.
The other consequence is that it would impact on those issues that brought me to the campaign in the first place. It would make it easier for UKOG to pursue their business and consequently increase climate change emissions. It would hammer yet another nail in the coffin of local biodiversity and it would endanger our aquifer and our health.
Constance Whiston
Where do you live? Leith Hill
Which is the nearest UKOG site to your home? UKOG have a large share interest in the development at Bury Hill Wood, Leith Hill, Dorking.
Why are you taking part in the challenge? I am doing what I can to protect the ancient and sacred Coldharbour Lane and woodlands of Leith Hill, an AONB and SSSI.
Why do you oppose oil exploration in the Weald? I believe in the protection and promotion of both environmental and public health.
What do you think will happen if UKOG’s injunction is allowed? I trust that the UK justice system will protect and preserve our human rights and that this case will inspire even more people to join our cause.
DrillOrDrop report on March 2018 hearing
DrillOrDrop will be reporting on the case at the High Court
Categories: Legal
DRILL OR DROP? 
Good luck, ladies.
All power to their elbows – they have our support, this is about more than fracking.
No one minds a peaceful protest, however dangerous activities such as locking on tankers, ruining family haulage businesses by any means and poisoning guard dogs and leaving filth everywhere is not acceptable.
None of which has hapened Mrs M
I beg to differ!
We leave no filth Mrs M, we have just cleaned up a site near warrington where we have camped for 3 years, was like a village. The parish councillors have just done a site inspection at our request and are thrilled at our massive efforts to clean everything away that was taken onto the site. Has taken a few months but we have persevered and cleaned everything away. In fact we leave a site often cleaner than we found it. We are enviromentalists Mrs M which is why we dont want this filthy industry destroying our landscape.
and as far as family haulage businesses are concerned…… do not work for the frackers….. they had work before fracking, let them carry on as they were.
That’s not always the case though is it Mavis?
The East Riding of Yorkshire Council spent around £75,000, excluding police costs, during an enforcement and clean up operation at a protest camp near Walkington.
Among the work carried out was the filling and cementing of an eight-foot tunnel under the Crawberry Hill Site access road, which the Council say had been excavated by protesters. Further works included: the collection of six skips full of waste, which included large volumes of timber and building materials; repairs to the hedge line and verge, including the use of four tonnes of soil to fill holes where toilets had been dug.
Dear John, It may be pertinent at this point to consider how the costs of cleaning up after failed oil and gas explorations might compare to your stated figure of £75,000 for cleaning up after the protestors near Walkington. I would imagine that we would be talking about much greater quantities of money. Here in West Sussex we have yet to see UKOG even begin to clear up after losing its permission to explore at Markwells Wood. No site restoration whatsoever. Nothing has been done to restore the site of the failed UKOG explorations at Broadford Bridge either. If I am reading the signs correctly neither of these sites will ever be ‘restored’ by the company that has endeavoured to exploit them. Given the fact that opposition to the unconventional extraction of oil and gas unites a vast swathe of humanity I’m sure that some people will do things that neither you nor I (nor Mavis) would approve of. The same could equally be said however about a number of unattractive personalities that support such unconventional extractions. UKOG’s current attempt to deprive protestors in the South East Of England of internationally accredited human rights being just one example. If one looks at the toxic denuded landscapes of fracking regions in Australia and the USA I believe that we have a genuine cause for grievous concern. No-one has succeeded long term in this industry. Many companies have gone bankrupt leaving terrible messes behind them. Who’s showing a profit in the UK? There may be one or two exceptions, but the vast majority of companies appear to be losing money hand over fist. Not necessarily their money though, so unless they’ve a sensibility towards their investors, I guess that it won’t worry them overmuch. They continue to draw large salaries from others’ depleting investments. Another highly questionable practise in my opinion, until or unless they actually produce something for them. Personally I’d rank the possibility of shitting on thousands of private investors far more serious in terms of criminality than shitting in latrines, which has been a common practise in the countryside for centuries. I entirely agree that protesting should be carried out in as lawful a manner as possible, but we should never forget that suffragettes were once arrested for petitioning for the right to vote. Those that make the laws that govern the lives of the many are few, and they are highly subject to political influences. Just because something is ‘law’ doesn’t necessarily make it right. Much of what Nelson Mandela did was considered unlawful, as were a number of the actions of Mahatma Gandhi. History now lauds their unlawfulness.
Jonathon, is there an access problem for UKOG at Markwells Wood?
The company is required to remove all buildings, plant and machinery, including foundations and plug and abandon the well by September 2018.
It is also required to restore the site to woodland by March 2019.
There is still time for events to take place.
When raising the issue of depriving the protesters of their human rights, does balance come into consideration, is it also not worth considering the effect on the human rights of those working in or for the industry, or do you subscribe to the Tina Louise view of “perceived rights” for those people?
There may well be time John, but will there be any money? UKOG’s balance sheet isn’t exactly healthy, and the fact that multiple UKOG company entities have been created also concerns me. Why has UKOG brought these companies into existence? DO they exist so that assets and debts can be moved around from one company to another? Is the purpose to be able to write off debts that have been transferred to a company that is to be sacrificed whilst assets are shifted to a more healthy environment? Forgive my scepticism, but I’ve never found Stephen Sanderson to be a particularly straight speaker, which will naturally make me suspicious as to his real underlying intentions. I have asked him a number of simple direct questions to his face and found him to be determinedly evasive. His RNS declarations to investors have also frequently appeared to express next to nothing of substance, comprising rather endless concatenations of bombastically delivered jargon seemingly specifically designed to obfuscate the core issues that people are wanting to know about. You talk about balance with regard to human rights issues, implying that protesters fail to respect the human rights of those involved in onshore unconventional oil and gas extraction. My own feeling is that the more extreme actions of protesters are driven by a raging sense of injustice. Our democratic processes appear to them to have been hijacked by vested oil and gas industry interests with the support and encouragement of our current government. Whatever local communities might want their wishes are routinely overridden by the current government. Their position is that they are in fact trying to correct a huge imbalance in favour of oil and gas company interests. I’m afraid I’m unable to comment on what you describe as the Tina Louise view of perceived rights as I have to confess that I’m unaware of it.
Best wishes,
Jonathan.
Oh is that the same guard dog that was found to not have been poisoned; https://drillordrop.com/2018/06/13/statements-on-dog-poisoning-sought-to-smear-fracking-opponents-campaigners/ I think you will find the verges along Horse Hill are full of plastic waste that has been discarded from motor vehicles – two of the things we are trying to change in the world, (plastic and ICE engines.)
As for ruining a family business, this industry does not care in the slightest for families or it would never cold vent gasses over them!
We know the game, we saw it in America and Australia. [Edited by moderator]
Mrs M can you evidence your post re “ Poisoning dogs” [Edited by moderator]
You obviously have no understanding of any facts what so ever Mrs M and must be an investor, or working for one of the companies facilitating this distruction.
No dog was poisoned, there was no evidence, nothing in the blood tests, nothing in the vets report, it was yet another PR stunt by the oil company that resulted in the arrest then subsequent de arrest of a peacefull protestor. Yet another example of the police protecting oil company interest over the local opposition.
Sites are vigorously cleaned after any protest, something you would aslo know if you had any facts. You have just shown you really know nothing about protestors, yet are a full supporter of this industry and happy to see environmental destruction just so a truck company can make a few quid. Shame on you!
@Dorkian this is not correct, which is exactly why an injunction is required. Filth has been left on the side of the roads near Horse Hill, protestors have chained them selves to gates and indeed invaded the site for a lock on, protesters have climbed upon and chained themselves to lorries and guard dogs have some how become ill whilst patrolling the site. If your not aware of this then you should re-educate your self on it.
Did the dog drink water from the drainage bund? There has been an insane amount of litter along that road for years, but not where the protesters stayed, that waas spotless when they left. and yes, when the police don’t allow slow-walks which are classed as peaceful poritest, and a lawfu use of the highway, the people do tend to change tactics.
Gareth…. if this atrocity happens it won’t just be guard dogs that get poorly on the site, but the whole environment will be unfit for our wildlife, and water and air unfit for humans, and our planet. These people are protecting not protesting , and ALWAYS leave the land in a better state than they found it ….
Mrs M , you do not obviously know what you are talking about , there are already laws that cover any illegal activity , if any haulage company are not aware of what they are doing or who they are supplying it isn’t ruining that company to inform them . Many companies have pulled out of supplying O&G of their own free will. I would be very careful of accusing anyone of poisoning a dog as this has proved to have not been the case as reported in many media outlets recently including here .
https://drillordrop.com/2018/06/13/statements-on-dog-poisoning-sought-to-smear-fracking-opponents-campaigners/
The persons who had been wrongly accused are taking action against the accusers so maybe you would like some of that yourself?
Of course you investors want to smear anyone who does or says anything that might put a stop to your profits but hey Melanie that wont make any difference to what we are doing .
The same to you Gareth as I said there are already laws to cover any illegal action .
allegedly! ! !
Oh yes it has, Dorkinian.
I suspect UKOG will have the evidence to prove it, just like INEOS has-thousands of pages and hours of video plus hundreds of arrests. Not on the same scale in the Weald, but prevention is allowable, especially as the antis get squeezed out of other venues.
False accusations are all they have.
https://www.desmog.co.uk/2018/06/13/sick-dog-fracking-protests-and-media-blame-game
Martin Collyer there may be hundreds of arrests, but charges are not brought on most and those that charges that are brought are thrown out of court. Maybe quote convictions instead of speaking of spurious and unlawful arrests where no crime has been committed. You cant drink oil and water is life! Millions of gallons to be used in frack in the Fylde whilst a hosepipe ban is threatened and we are all being asked to limit our use of water.
Our rights to peaceful protest are under attack, as said before illegal action is already covered by law. If the Suffragettes and Anti-apartheid movements hadn’t persevered where would we be. Plastics fill our oceans and now people are waking up to the fact, alternatively powered cars are available, energy can be clean and renewable.. So now the public globally are waking up to those facts there is less need for fossil fuels. The smears you investors throw at earth protectors won’t and don’t stand up in court or to public scrutiny. Everyone knows it’s profit for a few unethical greed driven individuals not for the planet and not for the people. You have become the dinosaurs and we know what happened to them . They now lie in the swamps so maybe you are the swampies.
Nothing to worry about then Jono?
Except, the Courts look at evidence objectively.
This is the this end of the wedge. It is not only about oil, it is about our rights to free speech, People died to gain us the right to stand up for ourselves, don’t let a couple of selfish, greedy individuals take this away. Don’t think for one minutes they care about the shareholders, they don’t care. they have shown contempt to local residents, caused public footpaths to become inaccessible so locals can no longer take a Sunday stroll through the fields to their local, instead they have to drive, or not go. this footpath has been used for hundreds of years and is likely to be lost forever now, Because someone thinks they can make a quick buck. Always at someone else’s expense.