The defendant environmental protesters had been convicted of obstructing a railway. They now appealed against the terms of a restraining order made under the 1997 Act. They said that an order could not be made to protect a limited company.
Held: The appeal was allowed. Although the case law did allow such an order in the particular circumstances of this case, one was not appropriate.
Citations:
[2010] EWCA Crim 2923, [2011] 1 WLR 857, [2011] Bus LR 448, [2011] Crim LR 332
Links:
Statutes:
Malicious Damage Act 1861 36, Protection from Harassment Act 1997 5(1)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Director Of Public Prosecutions v Dziurzynski Admn 28-Jun-2002
The defendant was an animal rights protester who had been convicted under section 2(2) of the 1997 Act of engaging in a course of conduct amounting to harassment of the employees of a company. The District Judge hearing the case made a restraining . .
Cited – Smithkline Beecham Plc and Others v Avery and Others (Representing Stop Huntingdon Cruelty (‘SHAC’) QBD 26-Jun-2009
GlaxoSmithKline sought an injunction to restrain unlawful conduct by way of trespass and harassment by animal rights activists done with the aim of preventing the use of animals in medical research.
Held: The court discussed whether an order . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Sentencing
Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.427384
