Campaigners file appeal against anti-protest injunction obtained by fracking company INEOS in #INEOSvthePeople
Pleadings have been filed this week by two anti-fracking campaigners who won the right to appeal against a sweeping anti-protest injunction granted by the High Court. Given the wide-ranging implications of the decision for social movements in the UK, campaigners welcomed the Court of Appeal’s earlier decision to hear the appeal.
Joseph Boyd, represented by Heather Williams QC, Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh and Jennifer Robinson with Leigh Day Solicitors, and fellow campaigner, Joseph Corré, opposed an interim injunction granted to fracking company INEOS in July last year.
In July 2017, INEOS - which has been awarded the most fracking licences by the UK Government - was granted the injunction to prevent future protest activity in relation to eight sites across England where fracking was planned or under investigation by INEOS. The injunction also applied to contractors, sub-contractors and other entities which make up INEOS’ supply chain.
The case raised controversy last year after the sweeping injunction was granted as a pre-emptive measure to restrict protests at proposed INEOS fracking sites. The challenge to the injunction, addressed to “persons unknown”, sparked a social media campaign #INEOSvthePeople.
The High Court upheld the injunction in November 2017. Since then other fracking companies have been relying on the High Court decision to obtain injunctions preventing protest, at a time when public debate continues about whether fracking should be permitted in England after bans and moratoriums have been imposed in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, Ireland, France and elsewhere. The judgment has also been cited as justification for a conviction in a criminal case involving three family members who had been protesting against a fracking development.
Under the terms of the current injunction, people are forbidden from ‘obstructing, impeding or interfering with the lawful activities’ of INEOS staff and their contractors. Anyone who is found to have breached the injunction is liable to arrest and a prison sentence of up to two years and/or a fine up to £5,000.
The appeal is a test case about how injunctions can be used to limit protest: in particular, whether such wide-sweeping injunctions can be granted against ‘Persons Unknown’ and to protect supply chain companies on the basis of the conspiracy to use unlawful means tort, which is an economic tort and has never been previously used outside of a commercial competition context to restrain the activities of protestors.
Joseph Boyd said: “The High Court judgment has wide ranging impacts on not only those involved in the campaign against climate change and fossil fuels, but also anyone who wishes to express opposition against any potentially controversial industry.
“I don’t think that people should be constrained to banner waving and petition signing in order to protect the environment and the health of their families and future generations. I very much hope the Court of Appeal will act to uphold the fundamental right to protest peacefully against deeply problematic and divisive industries such as fracking. Our right to peacefully protest is a core value in this country’s democratic history.”
Joseph Boyd is crowd-funding to support his challenge. Donate to support the case here: https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/fracking-round2/
