Trinity College, Cambridge v Persons Unknown & Anor

Summary possession orders may be granted against protester trespassers where there is no real prospect of a successful Convention-rights defence and no compelling reason for a trial. The court should assume, for a summary hearing, that Articles 10 and 11 are engaged and assess whether the interference is prescribed by law, pursues a legitimate aim and is proportionate.

A final newcomer injunction requires a compelling need, in addition to ordinary proportionality and adequacy-of-damages requirements. The claimant must show an imminent and real risk of further trespass, that reasonable alternatives have been exhausted, and that the order is clearly defined and no wider or longer than reasonably necessary.

Two Cambridge Colleges sought summary possession orders and final injunctions against persons unknown associated with Cambridge for Palestine. The protesters had occupied lawns belonging to Trinity College and St John’s College, erected tents, made intermittent loud noise and, after interim relief was obtained in the first case, moved to the second site.

The protesters left after interim injunctions were served. The European Legal Support Centre was permitted to intervene because the defendants were unrepresented and Convention rights were engaged. The issues were whether possession orders should be made under CPR Part 55 and whether the interim injunctions should be continued as final newcomer injunctions, including questions of proportionality, geographical scope and duration.

1. Possession. The Colleges were registered proprietors and the protesters were trespassers whose licences, if any, had been terminated. Their departure under interim injunctions did not make possession orders unnecessary. Possession orders could be made against persons unknown because the claim was essentially in rem and enforcement restored physical possession.
2. Convention rights. The court assumed that the Colleges were public authorities and that possession orders and injunctions interfered with Articles 10 and 11. The interference was prescribed by law, pursued the legitimate aims of protecting the Colleges’ property and the rights of students, staff and lawful users, and was proportionate. The Colleges’ right to regain possession, the examination disruption and the evidence of intimidation substantially outweighed the interference with protest rights. The protesters had other lawful means of expression, including procedures under the Colleges’ codes.
3. Scope of possession orders. Orders could extend across each College’s main site. The sites were sufficiently self-contained, and there was a real risk that protesters removed from one lawn would move elsewhere on the same site. The limitation recognised in Meier prevented an order covering entirely separate pieces of commonly owned land.
4. Newcomer injunctions. Applying the guidelines in Valero and the principles in Wolverhampton, the court found an imminent and real risk of renewed trespass, no realistic defence, inadequate alternative remedies, inadequate damages and a compelling need for injunctions. Police powers, internal disciplinary procedures, requests to reduce noise and possession orders would not provide equivalent protection.
5. Calibration and safeguards. The injunctions could cover the whole of each College site, but had to contain clear boundaries, match the trespass claim and avoid regulating conduct on the public highway. They were granted until the end of the 2026 examination period, subject to any later extension being supported by evidence. Anyone affected could apply to vary or discharge the orders. Any contempt application against an unnamed defendant required prior permission of the court and was to be made without notice.

Summary judgment and possession orders were therefore granted, with final injunctions in suitably redrafted terms.