INEOS fracking injunction continues

authordefault
on

By Ruth Hayhurst, DrillorDrop

A judge has ruled that an injunction obtained against anti-fracking protesters by INEOS Shale shouldย continue

Earlier this month, INEOS โ€“ the UKโ€™s largest holder of shale gas exploration licences โ€“ asked the High Court to extend theย order.

Two environmental campaigners who opposed the order argued it was โ€œunprecedentedโ€ and โ€œdraconianโ€ and should beย dismissed.

On 23 November, Mr Justice Morgan ruled that the interim injunction should remain in place. The campaigners can appeal.ย  A future trial would be needed to make the orderย permanent.

Mr Justice Morgan said he wanted to change some of the wording to the order to clarify what it covered. He also removed a clause in the original order preventing harassment of INEOS staff and contractors. (You can read more about what the Judge said here.)

The case has been seen as a test of rights to protest and is regarded as important because it may encourage other companies to take similar action against opponents of theirย activities.

‘Personsย Unknown’

INEOS sought the original injunction in July after saying it faced โ€œa real and imminent risks of being targeted by unlawfulย protestsโ€.

The company, which has yet to be granted planning permission for shale gas exploration, said the injunction aimed to prevent unlawful activity, not curtail lawfulย protest.

The order is directed against โ€œpersons unknownโ€ and prohibited them from interfering with the lawful activities of INEOS staff and contractors. People who breached the order risk prison or having their assetsย seized.

It specifically named two protest techniques used by anti-fracking campaigners: slow walking in front of deliveries and climbing on top of vehicles, known as lorryย surfing.

The slow walking clause was a key issue during previous hearings. Some police forces regularly facilitate slow walking protests at fracking sites. Campaigners have been acquitted of allegedly obstructing the highway during these protests. Slow walking, โ€œlorry surfingโ€ and unlawful obstruction of the highway without unreasonable excuse remain in theย order.

Campaigners Joe Corre, son of fashion designer Vivienne Westwood, and Joe Boyd, argued that order breached human rights to freedom of expression andย assembly.

They said it was unnecessary and based on flimsy evidence that over-stated or misrepresented theย risk.

The order threatened law-abiding people and was already having an โ€œimpermissible chilling effectโ€ on the rights to protest, theyย said.

More details of the orderย here

Reaction

Challenger, Joeย Corre:

โ€œINEOS wanted to criminalise legitimate protest including imprisonment and unlimited financial penalties for anyone who made negative comments about them or their supply chain on social media or any other form of communication. That has completely gone, and rightlyย so.

โ€œHowever, this company, INEOS, which means against them in Latin, is still trying to buy the law and take away your right toย protest,โ€

He said: โ€œThe first time, INEOS lost about 10% of what they asked for in their initial 2,000-page injunction. This time around, a much larger chunk has been choppedย away.

โ€œIn this latest judgement, INEOS have lost any mention of harassment. The judge has removed it from the injunction completely. Because telling someone who is trying to destroy your environment that you donโ€™t like it is notย harassment,โ€

Tom Pickering, Operations Director of INEOSย Shale:

โ€œOur 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, peacefullyย protest.โ€

Mr Pickering said INEOS staff had faced threats by email and social media,ย including:

โ€œI will go and blow them up โ€“ just you watchโ€. โ€œKick the hell out of the driver and force chemicals down his throat.โ€ โ€œThis is war so expect casualties.โ€ โ€œKill their childrenโ€. โ€œCanโ€™t somebody kill the owner of INEOS?โ€ Heย said:

โ€œThese threats are vile, abusive and frightening. They demonstrate the sort of people we areย facing.โ€ย 

Joe Boyd,ย challenger:

โ€œWhat INEOS has obtained from the Court todayย is profoundly troubling, it allows for anย unprecedented restriction on our fundamental rights.ย The removal of the harassment aspect of the injunction is an important victory for us. But the rest of the injunctionย cannot be left unchallenged and weย will be filing an application for permission toย appeal.โ€

Rosa Curling, of Leigh Day, which represented Joeย Boyd:

โ€œFree speech is at the heart of any democracy. This case is about the right to protest, a right which has always been, and must continue to be, a fundamentalย aspect of peaceful political action in our society. Without the right to protest effectively, the ability of citizens to peacefully challenge injustices will beย severelyย curtailed.โ€

Jonathan Bartley, co-leader of the Greenย Party:

โ€œThis ruling places the right to protest underย threat. Ineos have won a technical battle but they are on the wrong side of history and will not win the war. I have visited fracking sites across the country. I have seen the commitment, the energy, and the passion of those who know that fracking is bad for their communities and their country. Their opposition to fracking will never be silenced and the campaign for a future thatโ€™s clean and green will win out in theย end.โ€

Wenonah Hauter, Food & Water Watch and Food & Waterย Europe:

โ€œThis decision undermines our basic democratic rights to protest and defend ourย communities.

โ€œIneos is facing sustained protests for a reason. The company has amasssed an atrocious environmental record across Europe, from chemical leaks and substantial pollutant releases to fires and explosions. If this company is being allowed to frack the UK, more pollution and more accidents are likely toย follow.โ€

โ€œThe public knows the dangers fracking poses to our clean air and water, and thatโ€™s why activists in England are taking bold action to protect their communities against these threats. Ineos would like to stifle this movement, and unfortunately this High Court injunction has given the company a potentially powerful tool to threaten those advocating for a healthy climate and a livable world. If Ineos thinks a court injunction will stop the movement to protect our water, climate and communities from fracking, they are in for a surprise.โ€œ

Kevin Blowe, of the policing monitoring organisation,ย Netpol:

โ€œINEOS now has to implement the injunction. Potentially hundreds of people could be acting against the terms of the order. They have to make a decision on who they bring contempt proceedingsย against.

โ€œThe company said it was advised by the police to use civil injunctions. Does this mean the police will co-operate with INEOS on bringย actions?

โ€œThe other concern is whether this injunction has encouraged otherย  companies to use injunctions againstย protesters.โ€

The article has been cross-posted fromย DrillorDrop.

Photo:ย DrillorDrop

authordefault

Related Posts

on

For years, United, American, and other airlines have led massive lobbying efforts against regulations to prevent climate change.

For years, United, American, and other airlines have led massive lobbying efforts against regulations to prevent climate change.

The EU and many member states have set limits for how much manure farmers are allowed to apply in their fields, but crucial oversight is lacking.

The EU and many member states have set limits for how much manure farmers are allowed to apply in their fields, but crucial oversight is lacking.
on

Robert Wilkie was speaking at a conference co-hosted by the group behind the radical Project 2025 agenda.

Robert Wilkie was speaking at a conference co-hosted by the group behind the radical Project 2025 agenda.
on

Scope of corporate influence underscores concerns the technology will be used to prolong demand for planet-heating natural gas.

Scope of corporate influence underscores concerns the technology will be used to prolong demand for planet-heating natural gas.