National Highways Limited v Adelheid Russenberger & Ors
[2024] EWHC 566 (KB)
National Highways Limited v Charlotte Kirin & Ors
30 October 2023
[2023] EWHC 3000 (KB)
High Court
People were arrested for protesting on a motorway. A judge said it didn't matter if they knew about a court order banning it before they started, only if they knew while protesting. Some didn't know, some did after being told by police, and some already knew. Those that knew got a warning, the others didn't get punished.
Key Facts
- •National Highways Limited (NHL) applied for committal for contempt of court against 12 defendants for breaching a precautionary injunction (Chamberlain Order) against Persons Unknown associated with Just Stop Oil (JSO).
- •The injunction prohibited trespassing on M25 motorway structures, specifically gantries.
- •Defendants were arrested for public nuisance, with trials set for 2024 and 2025.
- •NHL served the injunction via alternative methods (email, website, Twitter, Press Association).
- •10 defendants claimed lack of knowledge of the injunction.
- •The key legal issue was whether knowledge of the injunction was necessary for liability or only relevant to sentencing.
Legal Principles
With compliant alternative service, respondents are deemed to have notice of the injunction; lack of knowledge is relevant only to sentencing.
Cuciurean v. Secretary of State for Transport [2021] EWCA Civ 357
In contempt proceedings for breaching a court order, the applicant must prove to the criminal standard that the respondent (i) received notice, (ii) intended the act, and (iii) knew the facts making the act a breach.
Cuadrilla Bowland v Persons Unknown [2020] EWCA Civ 9; Cuciurean
The burden of proving lack of knowledge falls on the defendant, to the civil standard, once the applicant establishes liability and compliant service.
Cuciurean
Outcomes
The court ruled that knowledge of the injunction was not a necessary element for liability; only for sentencing.
The court found Cuciurean to be binding precedent, rejecting arguments that it misconstrued earlier authorities.
Ten defendants successfully proved lack of knowledge before reaching the gantries (civil standard).
The court accepted their testimony despite the claimant's arguments about JSO's communication and the defendants' lack of surprise at the injunction.
Four defendants (Bleach, Bell, Johnson, Linhart) acquired knowledge on the gantry, incurring liability for remaining there after receiving notice.
The court accepted the police evidence about the communication of the injunction, despite the defendants' claims of not hearing or paying attention.
Mair Bain and Theresa Norton, having prior knowledge, received suspended committal orders (40 and 80 days, respectively).
Their culpability and the harm caused were high, but mitigating factors including apologies and promises of future compliance resulted in suspended sentences.
No penalty imposed on the ten defendants who lacked prior knowledge.
The court held that Cuciurean and Cuadrilla precedent did not allow for penalties in cases of technical breach due to lack of knowledge.