Ineos Fracking Injunctions Having 'Chilling Effect' on Right to Protest, Court Told

authordefault
on

By Ruth Hayhurst for Drill orย Drop

The injunction against anti-fracking protests granted to Ineos is already breaching rights to freedom of speech, the court of appeal heardย today.

A challenge, brought by fashion designer Joe Corre and campaigner Joe Boyd, argued that the injunction against actions at Ineos sites and premises was โ€œwide-ranging, unclear, unfair and based on exaggeration and untestedย evidenceโ€.

Heather Williams QC, barrister for Mr Boyd,ย said:

โ€œIt is having an impermissible and severe chilling effect on the right to free speech and to protest. It is an unlawful interference with thoseย rights.โ€

The High Court judge, Mr Justice Morgan, first granted the injunction to Ineos at a private hearing in Julyย 2017.

It became a template for later injunctions granted to Cuadrilla, UK Oil & Gas, IGas and Angusย Energy.

People who breach the terms of the injunction could be in contempt of court and face up to two years in prison, unlimited fines or seizure of theirย assets.

Mr Boyd and Mr Corre are appealing against the injunction on three grounds: It should not have been made against โ€˜persons unknownโ€™; It should not outlaw protests against Ineosโ€™s supply chain; Mr Justice Morgan failed to assess Ineosโ€™s evidence, as required by the Human Rightsย Act.

Todayโ€™s hearing, at the Royal Courts of Justice, was before three law lords and was being seen as a test case for protest injunctions. Three QCsย represented the campaigners and Ineos, with support from another four barristers. Friends of the Earth has also intervened in the case. The arguments are due to conclude at lunchtime tomorrow (6 Marchย 2019).

โ€˜Almost Alice inย Wonderlandโ€™

Both challengers sought to overturn the injunction because Ineos took action against โ€œpersonsย unknownโ€.

This meant there were no parties or named defendants in theย case.

People would become a defendant only if they breached the injunction by trespass, obstruction of a site entrance or section of the highway or by interfering with Ineosย contractors.

Stephanie Harrison QC, for Mr Corre, said the descriptions of these actions in the injunction order were โ€œunclear, subjective and tooย wide-rangingโ€.

She said people could breach the injunction by stepping off a footpath after a runaway dog, or if their car broke down or if a lorry shed aย load.

โ€œThis a wholly novel situation. There are no โ€œpersons unknownโ€ before theย court.

โ€œThe only point when you know you are defendant is when you face committal [for breach of theย injunction].

โ€œIt is sentence first and verdictย second.

โ€œIt is not quite Alice in wonderland but it is not farย off.โ€

Ms Harrisonย said:

โ€œIneos identified a large number of individuals in evidence, making allegations of criminal and tortious conduct. Those persons were not before the court and did not have any opportunity to defendย themselves.โ€

She said local people living near Ineos sites also had no voice in the injunctionย proceedings:

โ€œBecoming a named defendant risks costs, damages and futureย liability.

โ€œThe threat of severe penalties for breach and prohibitive costs liability was a serious deterrent to those local people from coming forward toย participate.โ€

Ms Harrisionย added:

โ€œWhat happened here is a fundamental departure from dueย process.

โ€œIt is plainly not open to the court to pursue that sort of process. There is no statutory provision for it or, at best, the rules are ambiguous. It is not in accordance with the commonย law.โ€

Supply chainย injunction

The order granted by Mr Justice Morgan prohibited conspiracy to use unlawful means against contractors and the supplyย chain.

Heather Williams told the court that people could breach the injunction if two or more combined together to take unlawful action against the supply chain with the joint intention of causing damage toย Ineos.

The order specifically outlawed long-standing protest techniques, such as slow walking, which has been tolerated by some police forces and courts, as well as lorry surfing andย lock-ons.

Ms Williamsย said:

โ€œWe are in a situation under this injunction where two people could talk about obstructing the highway and plan to do it. They would have potentially breached the injunction and face serious penalties. If they went out and did the obstruction the most that could happen to them under the criminal law would be a ยฃ1,000ย fine.โ€

Ms Williams said Mr Justice Morgan had been wrong to create what she describedย as:

โ€œa novel, uncertain, unnecessary and disproportionate injunction which exposes a significant number of people to serious penalties for freedom of speech and protest-related activities and is already having a serous chillingย effect.โ€

She said the judge had failed to consider whether this part of the injunction was necessary or proportionate. He also failed to take into account tolerance of protest activity required of theย authorities.

Mr Justice Morgan was wrong, Ms Williams said, to apply a blanket ban on slow walking, lock-ons or lying on the road. He was also wrong to specify what was a reasonable use of the highway without referring to the Human Rights Act, sheย said.

Ms Williams said there were already powers available under the criminal law and other forms of injunction, including publicย nuisance.

She added that Ineos had failed to provide any evidence of financial loss to its companies because of actions against its supply chain. It was open, she said, to Ineos contractors to take out their ownย injunctions.

โ€˜Exaggerated and selectiveย evidenceโ€™

Ineos had argued that the injunction was needed because there was an imminent threat against its sites andย contractors.

Both Mr Boyd and Mr Corre argued that Ineos had provided what they described as โ€œselective, exaggerated and inadequate evidenceโ€ to back up thisย case.

Ms Williams told theย court:

โ€œMost protest against fracking was and is entirely lawful but Ineos evidence elided lawful protest activity with the imminent risk of unlawfulย behaviour.โ€

She said the evidence, mostly based on protests at other operatorsโ€™ sites, did โ€œnot come closeโ€ to supporting Ineosโ€™sย fears.

Ms Williamsย added:

โ€œThere appear to be no prior examples of injunctions of this kind having been granted in favour of particular companies on the basis that the nature of the industry in which they are involved is controversial and attractsย protest

Sheย said

โ€œMr Justice Morgan erred in failing to conduct any or any proper analysis of the evidence relied upon to determine whether a trial would be likely to accept the assertedย risksโ€.

She said he failed to distinguish between lawful freedom of expression and assembly, protected under the Human Rights Act, and unlawful activities. He also failed to acknowledge that the evidence had been disputed at the original injunctionย challenge.

โ€˜No error of legalย principleโ€™

Alan Maclean QC, for Ineos, defended Mr Justice Morganโ€™s ruling on the injunction. Heย said:

โ€œThe judgment contains no error of legalย principle.

โ€œThe learned Judge, in a characteristically full and rigorous judgment, directed himself by reference to well settled principles of law, and applied those principles to the facts of the application in order to decide whether to exercise his discretion to grant interim relief, and if so, on whatย terms.

Mr Justice Morganโ€™s approach to the law was orthodox and correct, and his application of that law to the facts and the exercise of his discretion to grant relief is, it is submitted, unimpeachable onย appeal.โ€

Mr Maclean said Ineos sought to prevent protest camps becoming established before work was carried out at the prospectiveย sites.

On โ€œpersons unknownโ€, he said ย a recent ruling by the Supreme Court on ย had no impact on theย case.

Heย said:

โ€œMr Justice Morgan accepted that persons unknown was an established and permissible way to proceed, no special justification needs to beย shownโ€

He told theย court:

โ€œThe protesters are the people who Mr Justice Morgan said there was no reason to say they would not take action against Ineos inย future.

โ€œThey are real people. They are not imaginary people. They are real protesters but they are not able to beย identified.โ€

Mr Macleanย added::

โ€œIt is impossible in the context of an evolving and amorphous group of people without any structure to pin down the particular human being you need to go after to maintain the integrity of a piece of land and access, without which all commerce isย impossible.โ€

He told the court that as a result of theย injunction:

โ€œThere is no violence done to the rules. No injustice has been done to anyย individual.โ€

Mr Maclean will continue making his case for the injunction tomorrow morning. The hearing in court 67 at the Royal Courts of Justice on the Strand, London, begins atย 10.15am.

Image credit:ย DrillOrDrop

authordefault

Related Posts

on

Victoria Hewson called the 2050 ambition a โ€œhuge own goalโ€ while working for a Tufton Street think tank.

Victoria Hewson called the 2050 ambition a โ€œhuge own goalโ€ while working for a Tufton Street think tank.
on

Ahead of a city council vote, Resource Works launched an influence campaign with stock submissions for restaurant owners, hospitality workers, and residents.

Ahead of a city council vote, Resource Works launched an influence campaign with stock submissions for restaurant owners, hospitality workers, and residents.
on

Ahead of the November 29 election, dairy producers tell Irish government to step off the โ€œtreadmillโ€ of unsustainable milk production โ€“ and share a more holistic vision.

Ahead of the November 29 election, dairy producers tell Irish government to step off the โ€œtreadmillโ€ of unsustainable milk production โ€“ and share a more holistic vision.
on

The head of the CO2 Coalition tells DeSmog that Wright agrees carbon dioxide is โ€œnot the demon molecule, itโ€™s the miracle molecule.โ€

The head of the CO2 Coalition tells DeSmog that Wright agrees carbon dioxide is โ€œnot the demon molecule, itโ€™s the miracle molecule.โ€