North Warwickshire Borough Council v The Defendants Listed at Schedule A to this Judgment

A local authority may use its statutory powers to seek an injunction restraining actual or threatened public nuisance where it considers proceedings expedient to protect local inhabitants. The existence of criminal offences does not necessarily provide an adequate alternative remedy. Injunctive relief may be preventative, particularly where serious harm could occur before criminal proceedings are completed.

Restrictions on protest engage Articles 10 and 11 but may be proportionate where they pursue public safety, prevention of disorder or crime, and protection of others. A newcomer injunction against persons unknown may be granted where there is a compelling need, adequate procedural safeguards, strict territorial and temporal limits, and no adequate alternative remedy. A power of arrest may be attached where the statutory risk-of-harm threshold is met.

The Council sought a final injunction against named defendants and persons unknown following extensive Just Stop Oil protests at and around Kingsbury Oil Terminal between March and September 2022. The protests included trespass, obstruction, climbing onto fuel tankers and storage tanks, locking-on, and tunnelling.

An interim injunction had been granted and continued pending trial. The claim was adjourned while the Supreme Court determined Wolverhampton City Council v London Gypsies and Travellers. No defendant filed an acknowledgment of service or defence, although three defendants made closing submissions. The issues concerned standing, public nuisance, the compatibility of restrictions with Articles 10 and 11, newcomer defendants, the terms of relief, and a power of arrest.

1. Standing and causes of action. Section 222(1) of the Local Government Act 1972 enabled the Council to bring proceedings where it considered them expedient to promote or protect inhabitants’ interests. The Council’s statutory responsibilities, the scale of disruption, and the risks associated with the Terminal justified that decision. The evidence established actual and threatened public nuisance. It was unnecessary separately to determine whether the same facts constituted criminal offences.
2. Convention rights. The protests engaged Articles 10 and 11. Applying the structured approach in DPP v Ziegler, the proposed interference was prescribed by law and pursued legitimate aims. It was rationally connected to those aims. A public spaces protection order, byelaws, and criminal offences were not adequate less restrictive means because they did not provide equivalent coverage, deterrence, speed of enforcement, or preventative protection.
3. The injunction struck a fair balance because it prohibited protest within the private Terminal and specified extreme conduct in its locality, while permitting other protest activity. The restrictions were therefore necessary and proportionate.
4. Named and newcomer defendants. Injunctive relief was appropriate against the named defendants because their prior conduct and continuing association with Just Stop Oil established a real risk of repetition. A newcomer injunction was also justified under Wolverhampton: there was a compelling need, alternative measures were inadequate, notice and liberty to apply were available, the order was territorially confined, and a three-year term with annual reviews was just and convenient.
5. Power of arrest. Section 27 of the Police and Justice Act 2006 was satisfied because the prohibited conduct was capable of causing nuisance or annoyance and involved a significant risk of harm. A power of arrest was necessary to remove protesters immediately, identify them, and enable effective contempt proceedings.

The claim succeeded. A final injunction was granted against the Schedule A defendants and newcomer defendants for three years from trial, subject to annual review hearings. The precise order and alternative-service provisions were to be finalised after judgment.

The judgment records earlier procedural stages, including the interim injunction granted by Sweeting J on 14 April 2022 and continued in amended form on 5 May 2022. The reasons for continuation were given in North Warwickshire Borough Council v The Defendants Listed at Schedule A [2023] EWHC 1719 (KB). The present judgment determined the final claim.