This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/28/anti-fracking-activists-breached-injunction-judge-rules-cuadrilla

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Anti-fracking activists breached injunction, judge rules Anti-fracking activists breached injunction, judge rules
(3 days later)
Three anti-fracking protesters have been found to have breached an injunction designed to stop them demonstrating outside a fracking site in Lancashire, which they say has a “chilling effect on the right to peaceful protest”.Three anti-fracking protesters have been found to have breached an injunction designed to stop them demonstrating outside a fracking site in Lancashire, which they say has a “chilling effect on the right to peaceful protest”.
The trio were taken to court by Cuadrilla, which last year became the first firm to start large-scale fracking in Britain. The energy firm said it took legal action to prevent “dangerous, disrespectful and illegal activity” at its Preston New Road site near Blackpool.The trio were taken to court by Cuadrilla, which last year became the first firm to start large-scale fracking in Britain. The energy firm said it took legal action to prevent “dangerous, disrespectful and illegal activity” at its Preston New Road site near Blackpool.
Katrina Lawrie, Lee Walsh and Christopher Wilson were found in contempt of court at Manchester high court on Friday after taking part in a “lock-on” at the site on 24 July last year. It took police six and a half hours to separate the protesters as they sat locked together at the entrance to the site.Katrina Lawrie, Lee Walsh and Christopher Wilson were found in contempt of court at Manchester high court on Friday after taking part in a “lock-on” at the site on 24 July last year. It took police six and a half hours to separate the protesters as they sat locked together at the entrance to the site.
Lawrie was found to have breached the injunction on one further occasion, in August last year.Lawrie was found to have breached the injunction on one further occasion, in August last year.
The lock-on came less than a fortnight after a judge granted an injunction preventing “persons unknown” from trespassing on the shale gas exploration site and surrounding farmland, as well as prohibiting unlawful obstruction of the site entrance and adjacent main A583 road.The lock-on came less than a fortnight after a judge granted an injunction preventing “persons unknown” from trespassing on the shale gas exploration site and surrounding farmland, as well as prohibiting unlawful obstruction of the site entrance and adjacent main A583 road.
The judge, Mark Pelling QC, told the group they would not face jail but might receive a suspended sentence or fine at a further hearing in September.The judge, Mark Pelling QC, told the group they would not face jail but might receive a suspended sentence or fine at a further hearing in September.
“There can be no doubt that the respondents breached the injunction. It is beyond reasonable doubt that they intended to slow or stop the traffic,” said Pelling, who granted the original Cuadrilla injunction last year.“There can be no doubt that the respondents breached the injunction. It is beyond reasonable doubt that they intended to slow or stop the traffic,” said Pelling, who granted the original Cuadrilla injunction last year.
He adjourned sentencing for the three protesters and the environmental group Friends of the Earth to seek a variation of the terms of the injunction. They argue it is strikingly similar to a “draconian and anti-democratic” injunction taken out by Ineos, one of Cuadrilla’s rivals, which was subsequently overruled by judges as it was found to be “too wide and insufficiently clear”.He adjourned sentencing for the three protesters and the environmental group Friends of the Earth to seek a variation of the terms of the injunction. They argue it is strikingly similar to a “draconian and anti-democratic” injunction taken out by Ineos, one of Cuadrilla’s rivals, which was subsequently overruled by judges as it was found to be “too wide and insufficiently clear”.
“Injunctions such as this have a chilling effect on the right to peaceful protest. Britain has a proud history of protest. It forms the essence of civic society. From the actions of the suffragettes to the ‘Blackpool Two’, civil disobedience has long been exercised as a form of legitimate protest,” said Simon Pook of Robert Lizar solicitors, representing the protesters.“Injunctions such as this have a chilling effect on the right to peaceful protest. Britain has a proud history of protest. It forms the essence of civic society. From the actions of the suffragettes to the ‘Blackpool Two’, civil disobedience has long been exercised as a form of legitimate protest,” said Simon Pook of Robert Lizar solicitors, representing the protesters.
This is the first time anti-fracking campaigners have been brought to court for breaching the terms of an injunction. It is also thought to be the first time a company has attempted to bring proceedings against protesters for alleged breaches of a “persons unknown” injunction, according to the anti-fracking website, Drill or Drop. This is the first time anti-fracking campaigners have been brought to court for breaching the terms of an injunction. It is also thought to be the first time a company has attempted to bring proceedings against protesters for alleged breaches of a “persons unknown” injunction, according to the news website Drill or Drop.
In a statement, Francis Egan, the chief executive of Cuadrilla, said: “We respect the right to legal and peaceful protest but too often we have seen the opposite with dangerous, disrespectful and illegal activity around our shale gas exploration site in Preston New Road. Local people, our staff and contractors have rights too and they must be equally protected.In a statement, Francis Egan, the chief executive of Cuadrilla, said: “We respect the right to legal and peaceful protest but too often we have seen the opposite with dangerous, disrespectful and illegal activity around our shale gas exploration site in Preston New Road. Local people, our staff and contractors have rights too and they must be equally protected.
“What we are hearing, on a day-to-day basis from our local communities, is that the disruptive activities of a small group of activists is their main problem. Not Cuadrilla. Not the exaggerated claims about micro seismicity which causes no more vibration than that experienced everyday by standing by a busy road and not the hydraulic fracture process itself, which the wide-ranging and comprehensive regulatory monitoring of our operations has proven to be safe.“What we are hearing, on a day-to-day basis from our local communities, is that the disruptive activities of a small group of activists is their main problem. Not Cuadrilla. Not the exaggerated claims about micro seismicity which causes no more vibration than that experienced everyday by standing by a busy road and not the hydraulic fracture process itself, which the wide-ranging and comprehensive regulatory monitoring of our operations has proven to be safe.
“The court heard how the defendants acted in ways that were dangerous and designed to cause maximum disruption to people who daily use Preston New Road to go to and from work or drop their children at school. The defendants wrongly believed that their illegal protest should be allowed to interfere with and supersede everyone else’s right to work, travel or go about their day-to-day business.”“The court heard how the defendants acted in ways that were dangerous and designed to cause maximum disruption to people who daily use Preston New Road to go to and from work or drop their children at school. The defendants wrongly believed that their illegal protest should be allowed to interfere with and supersede everyone else’s right to work, travel or go about their day-to-day business.”
• This article was amended on 1 July 2019 to remove a reference to Drill or Drop as an “anti-fracking website”.
FrackingFracking
Fossil fuelsFossil fuels
newsnews
Share on FacebookShare on Facebook
Share on TwitterShare on Twitter
Share via EmailShare via Email
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn
Share on PinterestShare on Pinterest
Share on WhatsAppShare on WhatsApp
Share on MessengerShare on Messenger
Reuse this contentReuse this content