Legal Analysis: Human Rights & Protests vs. Ineos - Injunctions & Conspiracy, Lecture notes of Human Rights

Download Legal Analysis: Human Rights & Protests vs. Ineos - Injunctions & Conspiracy and more Lecture notes Human Rights in PDF only on Docsity! Persons Unknown and Human Rights after Ineos: Quia timet injunctions and beyond Yaaser Vanderman 8 April 2019 Persons Unknown and Human Rights after Ineos (1) General issues – width and clarity – Trespass on private land; – Interfering with access on private access roads; – Interfering with access on public rights of way; and, – Conspiring to injure by unlawful means. (2) Section 12(3) Human Rights Act 1998 Interfering with access on public rights of way • Terms of challenged Order – Longmore LJ: “41…The defendants are restrained from (a) blocking the highway when done with a view to slowing down or stopping traffic; (b) slow walking; and (c) unreasonably; and/or without lawful authority or excuse preventing the claimants from access to or egress from any of the Sites.” • Slow walking • “Unreasonably” obstructing the highway • “Without lawful authority or excuse” Interfering with access on public rights of way • Critical paragraph – Longmore LJ: “42. Mr Alan Maclean QC for the claimants submitted that the court should grant advance relief of this kind in appropriate cases in order to save time and much energy later devoted to legal proceedings after the events have happened. But it is only when events have happened which can in retrospect be seen to have been illegal that, in my view, wide-ranging injunctions of the kind granted against the third and fifth defendants should be granted. The citizen’s right of protest is not to be diminished by advance fear of committal except in the clearest of cases, of which trespass is perhaps the best example.” Interfering with access on public rights of way Lessons for injunctors? Conspiracy to injure by unlawful means • Why rely on this cause of action? • Morgan J in Ineos (High Court): “The Claimants rely on the tort of conspiracy to deal with the problem, as they perceive it, that the unlawful acts intended to be committed by the protestors will have a direct impact upon the supply chain of goods and services to Ineos but where the real target of the acts will be Ineos itself. The tort of conspiracy allows a victim of a conspiracy to sue where the acts are aimed at that victim even where the unlawful behaviour has its most direct impact on a third party. The other value of the tort of conspiracy from the Claimants’ point of view is that it enables them to claim a remedy in a civil court for breach of a criminal statute where the conduct in question does not, absent a conspiracy, lead to civil liability.” Conspiracy to injure by unlawful means Difficulties in relying on this tort in future cases: (1) “with the intention to injure…” (2) “causing loss and damage…” r Landmark Conspiracy to injure by unlawful means andaatl Lessons for injunctors? Human Rights Act 1998, s12(3) • Longmore LJ in Ineos: “48…It is not just the trespass that has to be shown to be likely to be established; by way of example, it is also the nature of the threat. For the purposes of interim relief, the judge has held that the threat of trespass is imminent and real but he has given little or no consideration (at any rate expressly) to the question whether that is likely to be established at trial. This is particularly striking in relation to Site 7 where it is said that planning permission for fracking has twice been refused and Sites 3 and 4 where planning permission has not yet been sought.” r Landmark Human Rights Act 1998, s12(3) Chambers , Effect? ‘Landmark Chambers END Yaaser Vanderman 8 April 2019