BAA injunction a hollow victory

mr | 06.08.2007 10:33 | Climate Camp 2007 | London

High Court judge Mrs Justice Swift has been reported to have found in favour of BAA. However as the details emerge it appears BAA have gained very little and Climate Camp itself is unaffected.

Three of the four groups are now injuncted, Plane Stupid, NoTRAG and HACAN. Airportwatch, the group that included 5 million or so people has, not surprisingly, been let off the hook.

"Mrs Justice Swift ruled at the High Court that the only way to prevent potentially "serious and damaging" consequences of any unlawful direct action was to grant an injuction.

Plane Stupid was banned because of its history of taking "direct action" - there were fears it would try to blockade the airport.

A spokesman for Plane Stupid said however that there is no injunction against Climate Camp, and that the injunction that has been issued is not an injunction as sought under the Harassment Act. As a civil injunction there are no powers of arrest under it, and it only covers the airport and areas covered by the airport bye-laws.

Airportwatch spokesman Peter Lockley added that the injunction was limited as it was aimed at stopping activity that was unlawful anyway.

The judge said there was a risk that "a terrorist group may use the disruption caused by the protesters to perpetrate a terrorist act". (source BBC).

Jumping in on the act a spokesman for BAA said "considering the current threat of terrorism, keeping the airport "safe and secure" was a "very serious business", and added that any action that would distract the police was "irresponsible".

The case continues at 2pm when many of the details will be clarified.

Additions

more information

06.08.2007 12:55

Delivering her ruling in a 90-speech this morning, Mrs. Justice Swift struck out most of BAA's application, pointing out that much of their evidence was based on news reports and web sites, and ruling that, as there is a "divergence of interest" within the groups named, [with the exception of Plane Stupid], they should not be targeted.

She said it is regrettable that Geraldine Nicholson was ever named in the application, and that there had been no suggestion --despite participation in previous demonstrations-- that Joss Garman or Leo Murray had ever harassed or intended to harass anyone.

She has therefore deleted the majority of BAA's application, substituting wording of her own, intended to allow lawful protest, [as enshrined by right in Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights], although preventing unlawful disruption of airport operations, [as already covered by Heathrow's by-laws].

The wording of her draft is being studied while the court adjourns for lunch. She is prepared to fine-tune the details, when the court resumes at 2 o'clock.

From the Climate camp website - camp is officially injunction free

06.08.2007 16:09

The Camp for Climate Action is not covered by the injunction that was granted at the High Court today, and will be going ahead as planned

BAA's original wide-ranging injunction could have affected 5 million people. Instead, they have been awarded a much smaller civil injunction against three named individuals. The final injunction provides no additional powers of arrest, and covers a much smaller geographical area, which will not include the camp.

Everyone, including the named injunctees, is therefore free to come to the camp.

Text of the statement by the Camp for Climate Action, read in front of the High Court in London this morning:

The Camp for Climate Action is going ahead.

We accuse BAA of abusing people's right to freedom of expression.

We accuse BAA of pushing for the expansion of airports in the full knowledge that it will lead directly to climate change and indirectly to the deaths of millions.

We accuse BAA of lying to local people, having first promised an end to the expansion of Heathrow in 1978.

We accuse BAA of being climate criminals. A crime for which they cannot be punished under UK law and which the government is actively supporting them in committing.

If you accept the right to life of the millions of people that will die because of climate change, then you can't stand by. Serious and immediate action becomes essential.

Today we are sending out a call to anyone

*that believes that BAA are the real criminals in this case,

*that knows that governments and corporations will not solve the problem of climate change but that it is down to ordinary people to find the solutions,

*that sees that we are living beyond what the earth's resources can sustain and need to create major social change to live sustainably.

BAA's legal action shows the lengths carbon criminals will go to defend their emissions. If you think that the likes of BAA and Gordon Brown give us any hope of a sustainable future then you can stay at home. Everyone else should come to the Camp for Climate Action from the 14th to the 21st August.

From the Camp there will be a day of mass action against corporate climate criminals on Sunday the 19th August.

The responsibility to tackle climate change lies with us all.

happy camper

No Third Runway Action Group press release

07.08.2007 08:25

High court sees through BAA intimidation

NoTRAG was one of the groups which was summoned to appear in the High Court on 1 August. Heathrow Airport Ltd and Mark Bullock its Managing Director were seeking to impose draconian injunctions on us. The hearing ended today.

NoTRAG contended it should NEVER have been named in this injunction – that our communities needed protecting from BAA.

Judge Justice Swift seemed to agree with us. She said ‘it is regrettable that (Geraldine Nicholson) was EVER involved in these proceedings.’

BAA failed to secure an injunction against Geraldine or against NoTRAG who were awarded costs.

BAA (Ferrovial) has deftly deflected attention away from its intention to wipe our communities off the map. In the High Court today it FAILED to silence us.

Christine Shilling, NOTRAG Press Secretary says, ‘you’ve failed to shut us up BAA and you will fail to ship us out. We’ve been fighting you for 6 years and we are NOT going away. We will not be intimidated. We will not be bullied. We’re no threat to the travelling public but you threaten our communities with annihilation and deprive our residents of hope. The third runway is NOT a done deal. And now you know we are not alone.’

Christine Shilling
Homepage: http://www.notrag.org.uk

"From the Mother of All Injunctions to the Mother of All Setbacks"

08.08.2007 08:11

Campaigners were delighted when the High Court yesterday only granted BAA a very limited injunction for a very limited period. The judge, Mrs Justice Swift, said that the injunction she was granting was "nothing like as wide-ranging as set out by the claimants."
HACAN Chair John Stewart said, "BAA came for the mother of all injunctions but left with the mother of all setbacks."

BAA had asked for an indefinite injunction to stop over 5 million people going to protest in the Heathrow area. The company was seeking to injunct residents groups HACAN and NOTRAG (No Third Runway Action Group), the umbrella body AirportWatch, whose members include the National Trust, RSPB, Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace, as well as the smaller direct action network Plane Stupid.

The judge, Mrs Justice Swift, only imposed an injunction on Plane Stupid and those who act in concert with them. She limited it to Heathrow Airport and a few properties owned by BAA in the Heathrow area and only imposed it for the month of August. The three named individual defenders, John Stewart, Joss Garman and Leo Murray, each gave an undertaking not to visit these areas during August.

All charges against the fourth defendant, Geraldine Nicholson, the Chair of NOTRAG, were dropped, with Mrs Justice Swift adding, "It is regrettable she was ever involved in the proceedings."

The judge refused to grant an injunction against HACAN, NOTRAG or AirportWatch and ordered that BAA pay their costs as well as those of Geraldine Nicholson. The judge also ordered BAA to pay the costs of Transport for London. She ruled that the injunction should not apply to the Piccadilly Line commenting that it was "extraordinary that no attempt had been made [by BAA] to consult with Transport for London." She also ruled that the injunction should not apply to the road network around Heathrow.

John Stewart said, "BAA came out of court claiming victory. In the light of what the judgment actually said, this can only be spin of the worst sort by a company which had been humiliated in court."

The judge made it clear that the injunction was not intended to stop the Camp for Climate Action, scheduled to take place from 14th - 21st August somewhere in the Heathrow area, from going ahead.

ENDS

For further information contact

John Stewart on 0207 737 6641 or 07957385650

Press Release dated: 7th August 2007

John Stewart
Homepage: http://www.hacan.org.uk

Climate Camp is NOT covered by the injunction

08.08.2007 15:01

Here is a bit more information about what actually happened with Monday's
injunction outcome, which should hopefully clear up any confusion based on
unclear and misrepresentative press stories!

First and most important: the camp is NOT covered by the injunction, and
you will not be breaking the law by coming to the camp! The camp is going
ahead as planned – not because it’s ignoring an injunction, but because it
is not affected by the injunction.

Second, this was a victory for us and for freedom to protest, not for BAA.
BAA originally sought an incredibly wide-ranging, draconian injunction
that could have affected 5 million people and that covered a wide
geographical area including the Piccadilly line and parts of the M25
motorway. What they got was an injunction that is civil and not criminal
(ie. no additional powers of arrest), against 3 named individuals and the
group Plane Stupid, and with a much reduced geographical area over which
the injunction applies. EVERYONE is free to come to the camp WITHOUT
breaching the injunction, including those named on the injunction. In
other words, the judge denied most of the original injunction, and gave
BAA something much smaller and much less powerful.

However they tried to spin the story on Monday (by the way, the reason
their ‘BAA wins injunction’ story got out first is because they sneakily
started talking to the press before the hearing was over!), BAA are
definitely not the winners in this case. The entire hearing has been a
farce, with the judge at times confused, at times thoroughly unimpressed
at BAA’s inability to decide exactly what the injunction covered.
Embarrassment continued as BAA was denounced across the board, by everyone
from the big NGOs to Ken Livingstone and the political parties to civil
liberties groups. And finally, BAA were ordered to pay all court costs,
apart from Plane Stupid’s.

So, BAA got very little of what they were originally seeking, got nowhere
in attempting to stop the camp, gave the camp loads of free publicity, and
are now out of a considerable chunk of change. We won, not BAA.

Loads of people have now heard about the camp who might not have
previously; but equally some people might be worried that this injunction
will affect them if they come to the camp. Please forward this email and
help to spread the word amongst your networks that the camp is not covered
by the injunction, and the outcome was in fact a real victory for protest
at Heathrow this summer.

Camp for Climate Action
mail e-mail: info@climatecamp.org.uk
Homepage: http://www.climatecamp.org.uk

Comments

Hide the following 7 comments

And the excuse?

06.08.2007 10:53

Once again terrorism is used as an excuse to infringe our Human Rights. The terrorists are indeed winning and they don't need to do anything to do so, they can instead rely on our government and judicial system to help them out.

Itsme

Another daft decision

06.08.2007 11:48

If Mrs Justice Swift was really interested in protecting Heathrow from terrorists then why has she not extended the injunction to Osama bin Laden? Answer - because she knows it will make no difference.

A N Other

MASS PICKET!!!

06.08.2007 14:18

Picketing is allowed. p.s. we are NOT "protestors" we're better and more effective. xxx

Ben
Homepage: http://www.youtube.com/benzoylation

Tuesday night solidarity march?

07.08.2007 08:48

This whole thing has got so much bigger since the court hearings, that I reckon there's scope for more protests before the Saturday actions. Why not call for a solidarity demo on the Tuesday evening, 8pm or something, aimed at people finishing work in the London area who want to come down and voice their support, but can't camp out all week? This could take the form of a procession leading them from the meeting point to the camp itself, assuming it's all been set up. If the police etc have somehow stopped the camp, then this would obviously become a protest march. I reckon it could attract large numbers.

Mark C

So how they gonna stop the camp?

08.08.2007 08:16

The injunction doesn't touch climate camp.
So it's unlikely the police will "stop" the camp, especially as the Met will have seen the mess BAA got into, and will be aware that the issue of freedom to protest is very much alive at the moment.

positive thinker

A statement from Ken Livingstone against further expansion at Heathrow

08.08.2007 12:12

The London Assembly has made clear its opposition to further expansion at Heathrow airport.

At a City Hall meeting yesterday, Members agreed to support those opposing the Government’s proposals for a third runway and sixth terminal at Heathrow.

Tony Arbour AM, who proposed the motion, said: “It seems that the Government is intent on publishing plans for additional facilities at Heathrow, but they appear to be railroading consultation on this issue. Heathrow is clearly already at capacity and any more expansion will make the lives of those under the flightpath unbearable. We as an Assembly must stand up against further expansion at Heathrow. Enough is enough.”

The motion was agreed with 22 votes in favour. It was seconded by Richard Barnes AM. The amendment proposed by Geoff Pope AM was accepted.

The full text of the motion is as follows:

“This Assembly views with alarm the Government’s support of proposals to bring forward plans to create a third runway and sixth terminal at Heathrow and will give all possible support to councils, community groups and the Mayor in opposing them; noting BAA’s past assurances that building Terminal 5 would not lead to another runway; and the conclusions reached by the T5 planning inspector, Roy Vandermeer QC, in 2000, that a third main runway at Heathrow would have such severe and widespread impacts on the environment as to be totally unacceptable.”
Ken Livingstone. 26-4-2007

http://www.london.gov.uk/view_press_release.jsp?releaseid=11750

Greater London Assembly member

An example of the state of things to come

19.08.2007 12:31

"a spokesman for BAA said "considering the current threat of terrorism, keeping the airport "safe and secure" was a "very serious business", and added that any action that would distract the police was "irresponsible". "

This statement alone should urge everyone to attend this event, nothing to me is more worrying than the increasing use of this as a reasonable argument for state sponsored restraints on civil disobedience. Good grief, oh heavens.

Jonah Brody