The latest showdown between Oxford University and animal rights protestors over the new biomedical lab will take place at the High Court tomorrow, Monday 3 April.
In early March, the University managed to get a secret extension [pdf] to an earlier injunction [pdf] against, among others, Speak which reduced the number of protestors allowed to stand at the official protests spot opposite the lab from 50 to 12 and also prevented them from using loudspeakers. It also gave legal protections to a range of companies associated with Oxford University, which have been receiving threatening letters.
That injunction was only temporary however and it now has to be argued in court at the Royal Courts of Justice, Queens Bench Division tomorrow morning.
Or at least, that's what the original injunction said: “The injunctions… shall continue in force until the final determination of the Claimants' applications to be made on 3 April 2006, or such other date as may be fixed for the hearing of applications in these proceedings.” However I can't find any mention of case HQ 04X 02793 on the QBD's hearings list for tomorrow. So it may be that a different date has been set.
In fact I have been trying to find out all about the legal side to the case and have only just realised how incredibly secretive the UK legal system is. I have grown used to the US system where you have, among other things, the PACER service where you simply type in the name of a court case or of a party involved and all the basic information is offered for 8 cents per page. These days you can often also download all the legal documents themselves in a pdf format.
Not so in England. In fact, the one service we do have – eLIS – which provides basic legal information on cases, is a closed shop. I applied for access and was informed: “Apologies – you are not eligible to use eLIS as this service is only available for the UK judiciary.” I asked if there was an equivalent of PACER and was told: “I have spoken to my line manager and as far as he knows, there is no UK equivalent of the Pacer service.”
I emailed the law firm representing Oxford University, Lawson-Cruttenden, who specialise in dealing with animal rights protestors and other similar pressure groups asking for information. And 11 days later I have yet to receive a reply.
However, Oxford Uni itself did get back to a series of questions that I asked. Here's the most important bit:
Why does the University feel these extra restrictions are necessary?
We have seen an escalation in threats and intimidating behaviour, and increasingly frequent noisy and abusive protest, since work resumed on the building at the end of November last year. Many staff and students have put up with the noise and fear of protests for well over a year now, and with the main exam season upon us again, it’s right that our students should be allowed to study and take their exams in peace.
At the hearing of the full application next week, the University will be seeking to extend the current High Court Order in order to protect University staff and students and the residents and businesses in the City of Oxford from further intimidation and harassment, including the use of harassment by noise, abuse and threats.
The University has also amended its proceedings to seek legal protection for all funding bodies, organisations and companies which have some links to Oxford. The purpose of these injunctions is to protect those associated with the University from the campaign of intimidation and harassment which has been directed against them with the aim of preventing them carrying out their lawful activities.
It is needed because the ordinary, lawful activities of people in this University, and in many organisations which have some links to Oxford, are being illegally threatened – despite the existence of the present injunction. That’s why we believe it needs updating in light of current activities. Returning to the courts is not a step we take lightly, but it is a necessary one given the wide range of threats being made against the University, its contractors and other associates. We are concerned to ensure that freedom of speech and expression within the law can continue, but we are seeking legal protection to restrict activities which at present are stopping members of the University and its associates from going about their lawful business.
We fully support the right for individuals to engage in peaceful and lawful protest, but the University now feels that it must seek legal protection proportionate to the threats being made against it.
I was assured that the hearing will take place in public (even though the law book I have covering the courts specifically states that hearing for injunctions heard at the Queen's Bench Division are heard in private), and that the defendents will be represented and are entitled to be present.
As for the threats made:
“The ALF has posted a number of warnings saying that all those connected with the University are legitimate targets. A number of organisations have received letters or emails containing threats (“it is likely that your offices will be damaged/raided and that members of staff will have their homes and cars attackedâ€) unless they publicly cease links with the University.
“There has been a series of arson attacks, one causing around £500,000 damage to a college boathouse, and attempted arson attacks on a second boathouse and to a building which is used for examinations, amongst other purposes. Groups have quite explicitly stated that properties are at risk.
“A firm of Oxford architects had property damaged in January, with cars spray painted and damaged, as well as damage to buildings.
“Staff and students in the science area must run the gauntlet of protesters who shout abusive comments, when they go into work or lectures. Even inside the buildings the noise – which includes megaphones, air raid sirens, tapes of dogs howling – is intolerable, causing disruption to research activities, study and teaching.
“The home addresses and phone numbers of individuals within the University have been published on the web and disseminated by email, with encouragement for supporters to take direct action against those individuals.”
The injunction, if approved, heavily restricts the animal rights protestors ability to protest in and around university buildings and around buildings associated with the university.
I am really in two minds about this. First of all, the university is acting in an unpalatable manner. It has hired expensive legal specialists and has collaborated with the police to be as effective as possible in disrupting what are, after all, lawful protests. It has asked for extremely strong measures against the protestors and it has done so in secret in the highest court of the land. None of that makes me feel comfortable.
But at the same time, I can fully understand the university's stance. The protestors will not be content with anything except the closing down of the lab's construction. And to that end will threaten and disrupt anyone that has anything to do with the lab. That is not reasonable behaviour and it shouldn't be tolerated.
They have every right to protest but as I have said several times before on this blog, they are abusing this lawful right to no useful end except in satisfying their own sense of frustration. They have lost the support of the people of Oxford because of their continued interruptions without having anything new to say.
Speak has got it message across to everyone – the university, the residents of Oxford, the law courts, the media – and everyone has listened and largely rejected them. But it has simply refused to accept that and has embarked on ever more disruptive means to attempt to force its opinion on people. Its response to 1,000 people marching as much against their continued protests as for the new building has been to shout and scream and yell that everyone is wrong.
And as soon as you hit this point, when a group simply refuses to accept what people have decided, and then sets about disrupting normal life out of spite, well then that is what the law is for.
As such, the extended injunction is, at this point, justified to my mind. The protestors have largely brought it upon themselves. Although the manner in which the university has achieved these injunctions is not comforting.