Update: 5 August 2007

CPRE and National Trust members, among many, will be relieved to hear that the most widespread injunction ever conceived was rejected in the High Court. It was designed to constrain any protest activities, or activities that seemed to constitute protest, of up to 5 million people at Heathrow, on adjacent motorways and on the Piccadilly Line. But the BAA and Timothy Lawson-Cruttenden had overstepped the mark. An injunction was awarded but this was narrowly restricted to one group, Plane Stupid, and to the airport limits. Costs were awarded against BAA. (Guardian; Telegraph). "This year, Oxfordshire [residents] were banned from protesting against RWE npower's plan to turn their beautiful Thrupp Lake into a dump for fly ash. The stated purpose of the injunction is to prevent them from causing alarm or distress to the burly security guards the company has employed. No protest, however polite, is now safe from prosecution under this monstrous act" (George Monbiot in the Guardian). The court made an order which upheld Heathrow's private property rights, but rejected both the claim in harassment and the attempt to stretch a court order to thousands of unrepresented individuals. Key points emerged which it is hoped will prevent a harassment injunction being used as a legal sledgehammer (Independent).

"I am a rottweiler. Give me a bone and I am going to get a bite." Timothy Lawson-Cruttenden, scourge of protesters and the former Blues and Royals lieutenant behind the Radley Lakes and Heathrow injunctions, was profiled in the Independent. But after Monday's hearing, John Stewart, chairman of residents' group Hacan said: "BAA's legal adviser claimed he was a legal rottweiler - today he looks like Scooby Doo" (Independent).

1 August 2007

The proposed Heathrow injunction follows a precedent set at Radley Lakes. It is an injunction too far.

Radley Lakes

A wide ranging injunction was served, and still applies to several hundred people involved in the Radley Lakes campaign. The function was to prevent harassment or identification of npower's contractors but its wording and effect was to suppress the freedom of protest and reporting. Specifically it bans "all protestors conducting activities against [npower's] intended use of… Radley Lakes [from] photographing or videoing [npower and contractors] or their vehicles which are protected in their entirety".

Despite widespread opposition, the basis of the injunction was confirmed by the High Court Campaigners now feel that they cannot afford to challenge the injunction because the legal costs involved would divert campaigning energy from the main campaign to save the Lakes.

Heathrow

CPRE is among the many environmental and amenity groups said to be threatened by the proposed injunction against protestors at Heathrow (Google news: http://tinyurl.com/3arlre). People should be allowed to protest against any activities at Heathrow, of course in a peaceful way. Violent and disruptive protestors should be dealt with under the already strong laws and, if needed, injunctions should be served against specific troublemakers.

Media reports suggest that the injunction proposed by BAA seeks to ban people from Heathrow and other locations simply because they are members of groups that hold views on climate change. Up to 5 million people will be affected.

This is an injunction too far. Freedom to protest is at the core of our democratic debate. We must treasure it.