High Court judge gives reasons for granting councils five-year injunction over Just Stop Oil protests

The High Court has granted Thurrock Council and Essex County Council a five-year injunction subject to yearly review against persons unknown in response to protest activity by Just Stop Oil.

Mr Justice Julian Knowles handed down judgment in the case in July. However, the written judgment with reasons was published last week.

The injunction covers three fuel terminals and storage sites in the region that have been the target of protests from Just Stop Oil.

The councils first sought an injunction in April 2022 after a demonstration saw protestors block roads and interfere with vehicles transporting fuel at the sites.

A witness statement considered by the court reported protestors glueing themselves to roads, climbing onto fuel tanker lorries and, in some cases, glueing themselves to the vehicles.

It also detailed at least two instances of tunnelling adjacent to and underneath the highway.

The council noted that the protests caused disruption to traffic, an additional £5,000 cost to Thurrock for waste services, damage to the highway from the tunnelling and safety risks, both to protestors and residents.

It also highlighted £300,000 worth of costs incurred by Essex Police, impacts on stock levels at fuel forecourts, and stated that the closure of a specific road impacts 13 businesses, costing an estimated £555,000 every day for which the road was closed.

An interim injunction was granted on 25 April 2022 after an out-of-hours hearing without notice before Ritchie J.

At a return hearing before His Honour Judge Simon, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, ruled than an injunction should remain in place until at least May 2023.

The injunction was further continued through 2023 and into 2024.

The councils then sought a precautionary injunction (and associated power of arrest) to prevent further and apprehended acts of public nuisance on the highway and trespass on the highway, including trespass by tunnelling under and adjacent to the highway.

In considering the application, the judge said the claimants "must show a 'compelling need', satisfied by evidence, for a precautionary injunction to protect civil rights".

Knowles J later concluded that the previous protests were not peaceful and involved unlawful activity and arrests.

"They have put others at risk, and put themselves at very great risk because of the nature of the protests," he said.

He also concluded that by committing trespass and nuisance, the 'Persons Unknown' risked obstructing supplies of fuel "which are vital to the economy" and risked causing the unnecessary expenditure of large sums of public money as well as other potential harm.

He continued: "In that context, I conclude that the aim pursued by the Claimants in making this application is sufficiently important to justify interference with the Defendants' rights under Articles 10 and 11 [of the European Convention on Human Rights], especially as that interference will be limited to what occurs on public land, where lawful protest will still be permitted.

"A single person holding a placard will not be caught by the injunction. Even if the interference were more extensive, I would still reach the same conclusion. I base that conclusion primarily on the considerable disruption caused by protests to date as described in the evidence."

He also accepted that there is a "rational connection" between the means chosen by the claimants and the aim in view, "namely to ensure the continued safe and efficient delivery of fuel".

"Prohibiting activities which interfere with that work is directly connected to that aim," he said.

Thirdly, he concluded that there are no less restrictive alternative means available to achieve that aim.

He added: "As to this, an action for damages would not prevent the disruption caused by the protests.

"The protesters are unlikely to have the means to pay damages for losses caused by further years of disruption, given the sums which the Claimants have had to pay to date.

"Criminal prosecutions are unlikely to be a deterrent, and all the more so since many defendants are unknown."

Fourthly, the judge concluded that the injunction sought "strikes a fair balance between the rights of the individual protestors and the general right and interests of the Claimants and others who are being affected by the protests, including the national economy".

He added: "Finally, drawing matters together, I am satisfied that the Claimants have demonstrated the requisite compelling need.

"They would obtain their injunction after trial."

Joe Walker, legal director at Sharpe Pritchard, represented the two councils, with Caroline Bolton and Natalie Pratt of Radcliffe Chambers appearing in court.

The defendants did not appear and were not represented.

Adam Carey