Hall & Ors v Stop Newchurch Guinea Pigs

On an interim application under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, the court may restrain an apprehended course of harassment and impose protective conditions, including a proportionate exclusion zone. The restraint must protect legitimate interests without imposing unnecessary interference with lawful protest. A very wide geographical exclusion zone affecting large numbers of people is unlikely to be justified at an interim hearing where narrower protection is available. The court may regulate the location, timing, duration and manner of demonstrations, and may prohibit publication of information that would facilitate harassment. Representative claims must be supported by sufficient evidence that the representative properly speaks for the relevant group.

The claimants were farmers and persons associated with a farm breeding guinea pigs for medical research. The defendants included individuals and unincorporated groups associated with animal-rights campaigning. The claimants relied on evidence of a prolonged campaign involving protests, harassment, criminal damage and attacks on suppliers and employees.

An imminent demonstration and a recent arson attack led to an urgent application for an interim injunction. The parties accepted that there had been insufficient time for a full hearing, which was listed for 17 January. The central issues were whether interim protection should be granted, the proper scope of any exclusion zone, the regulation of lawful demonstrations, and the representative status of the sixth claimant.

1. Interim relief. The court made an interim injunction under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. No findings of fact were made. The court assessed the evidence and determined where the balance lay. There was a clear arguable case and the evidence of serious problems affecting the claimants was strong.
2. Representative claim. The evidence was insufficient at this stage to establish that the sixth claimant properly represented the residents and members of the relevant parishes. No injunction was therefore granted in their favour, although the issue could be reconsidered at the full hearing. The suppliers and contractors of Darley Oaks Farm formed a sufficiently clear group and could be protected through the sixth claimant.
3. Exclusion zones. An exclusion zone may lawfully be imposed where it is necessary to prevent harassment, but it must not place unnecessary restraint on the defendants. The proposed zone covering about 200 square kilometres and approximately 10,000 residents was excessive for an interim order. The court instead adopted protection centred on the properties and land of the protected persons, with a 100-metre restriction and defined additional exclusion areas.
4. Demonstrations. Lawful protest remained permissible. The injunction regulated demonstrations by limiting their location, dates, times, duration and numbers. Demonstrations were confined to specified Sundays, between noon and 3 pm, with a maximum of 25 protesters. Saturday and bank-holiday demonstrations, excessive noise-making instruments, and conduct within the specified exclusion zones were prohibited.
5. Other prohibited conduct. The order restrained harassment, intimidation, interference, publication of identifying information about protected persons, placing orders in their names, and incitement. The court rejected publication of suppliers' and contractors' identifying information because it had facilitated serious attacks. The order was enforceable pursuant to CPR 19.6.4(b) and section 3(6) of the Act. Substituted service was ordered, costs were reserved, and the matter was listed for a four-day hearing with one reading day.