University of Birmingham v Persons Unknown

A writ of possession may be extended where coordinated and connected protests continue to threaten disruption of premises and the existing writ has not been exhausted. The court may grant the extension by parity of reasoning with a writ of restitution. Freedom of speech protects the objectives and expression of a protest, but it does not legitimise trespass or disruptive conduct intended to close an institution down. An order without notice may be appropriate where the defendants are unknown, frequently masked and not readily identifiable.

The University sought a further twelve-month extension of a writ of possession made in relation to its campus. The original order responded to repeated, coordinated occupations and disruptive protests by several connected groups. The protests had continued, and a further day of action was planned.

The University accepted that the groups’ aims concerning free education fell within legitimate free speech. It contended that the disruptive means adopted were unlawful trespass and continued to justify the order. The application was made without notice because the defendants remained unknown and were often masked.

1. Application granted. The writ of possession was extended for a further twelve months.
2. There were good reasons to extend the writ. The protests were organised, connected and coordinated, had continued after the original order, and were likely to recur.
3. Following Wiltshire County Council v Frazer (No. 2) [1986] 1 WLR 109, a writ of restitution could properly issue where connected and coordinated actions created the relevant difficulty. By parity of reasoning, the court could extend a writ of possession which had not been exhausted. The court’s discretion to issue such relief remained relevant.
4. The objectives of the protest groups were legitimately within the area of free speech. Their means were different. Disrupting University life so as to close the University down was not legitimate and rendered those taking part trespassers. The possession order therefore remained necessary.
5. The extension could properly be made without notice. The defendants were unknown, often appeared masked, and could not readily be identified. Prior notice was therefore impracticable.

First-instance decision. No earlier or appellate decision is stated in the judgment.