Thurrock Council & Anor v Madeline Adams & Ors

A final precautionary injunction may be granted where there is a strong probability of future breach of the claimant’s rights and grave, irreparable harm for which damages are inadequate. In protest cases, lawful protest remains protected, but deliberate obstruction, trespass, dangerous interference with vehicles or infrastructure, and conduct exceeding the lawful use of the highway may be restrained.

The proportionality assessment under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention is fact-specific. The court may consider the importance and location of the protest, its duration and physical occupation, the extent of interference with others, and whether less restrictive remedies would be effective. Criminal sanctions do not necessarily make injunctive relief unnecessary. A power of arrest may extend to all substantive prohibitions where the prohibited activities, considered generically, carry a significant risk of harm.

The claim was brought by Thurrock Council and Essex County Council for final injunctions restraining protest activity near fuel terminals, highways and petrol stations. Interim relief had been granted in April 2022 and continued thereafter. The claim remained against named defendants who had not settled, including Phil Laurie.

Mr Laurie sought permission to participate despite late acknowledgment of service. He opposed continuation of the injunction, contending that his protest activity had been peaceful and that the order was too broad. The central issues were whether a final precautionary injunction was justified, whether its terms disproportionately interfered with Articles 10 and 11, and whether a power of arrest should remain attached.

1. Relief to participate. Mr Laurie’s applications for an extension of time, relief from sanction and permission to participate were granted. Although the default was serious and the explanation unmeritorious, it was just and equitable to determine the real issues between the parties because no practical prejudice had been caused.
2. Final precautionary injunction. The court held that the test was satisfied. There was a strong probability and an imminent and real risk that unlawful protest activity would recur, and the resulting harm could be grave and irreparable. The court adopted the distinction between protests whose disruption is merely incidental and protests deliberately directed at obstructing traffic or access.
3. Convention rights. The injunction interfered with Articles 10 and 11, but was prescribed by law and pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the public and public agencies. The determinative question was whether the interference was necessary in a democratic society. The injunction prohibited only specified unlawful or dangerous forms of protest and did not prevent lawful protest, such as holding a placard beside a road.
4. The proportionality assessment required consideration of the importance of the aim, rational connection, less restrictive alternatives and fair balance. Damages and criminal prosecutions were inadequate alternatives in the circumstances. The repeated and substantial disruption to fuel supplies, public services and the national economy justified the geographical scope and duration of the order.
5. Scope and enforcement. The court rejected objections to prohibitions on deliberate obstruction, locking-on, erecting structures, damaging roads or apparatus, encouraging breaches, and slow marching where it deliberately obstructed traffic. The prohibition on locking-on was justified by its use in multiple locations to cause substantial harm. The power of arrest was retained for all substantive prohibitions because the activities, considered generically, carried a significant risk of harm.
6. The order was continued for five years from the hearing, subject to annual review and applications to vary or discharge. The court also held that the remaining named defendants could properly be treated as a broad-based composite for the purpose of assessing the risk arising from the group’s coordinated tactics.

The judgment describes earlier interim and case-management stages, including the grant of interim relief on 24 April 2022 and its continuation on 27 May 2022. This was the final hearing of the claim against the remaining named defendants.