Oxford University and the animal rights protestors squared up to each other in the High Court yesterday. The university is looking to make an extension on an earlier injunction permanent. That extension restricts the number of people allowed to gather opposite the biomedical lab at the centre of the dispute and also prevents protestors from using loudspeakers and such like, which it says will disrupt sutdents trying to revise.
So – what happened?
Well, fortunately, the hearing was not only open (as the university had promised) but The Guardian was good enough to send a reporter. I would have gone except for the fact I really have to get on with my Sex.com book so I decided to cover it second-hand.
The hearing is expected to end today so we will see who prevails but in the meantime, the Guardian's article was a good classic piece of reporting and covered the main arguments well.
Mr Justice Holland heard the case, Oxford was represented by Charles Flint QC and Speak et al by Marc Willers, a specialist in civil actions against the police.
Oxford said the extension – which was approved on a temporary basis last month – was needed to protect workers and university staff from intimidation and harassment. And he promised to show video footage of protestors breaking the injunction. Despite the ban on loudspeakers he had testimony of how disrupting the noise from protestors was.
Also protestors were trying to find out who the workers on the site were, Flint said. [Which of course they are, because they intend to embark on the same campaign of intimidation that cause the previous contractors, Montpellier, to pull out of the lab building project.]
Speak's lawyer appeared to agree with the noise issue and said if the noise was curtailed, there was no need for the extension. “What is suggested clearly goes way beyond what is necessary in this case and amounts to an unjustified and disproportionate infringement on the right to protest,” he argued.
He also pointed out that the police had not submitted any evidence as to why they believe the injunction should be extended.
Proceedings have just started again – 11am – (you can see the daily list online) so we see what happens.
COURT 24
Before MR JUSTICE HOLLAND
Tuesday, 11th April, 2006
Not before 11 o'clock
UNROBED
APPLICATION NOTICE
IHQ/06/0263 Chancellor of Oxford University & ors v Broughton & ors Pt Hd
I should point out as well that Speak has posted a typically emotive post on its site about the court case prior to its beginning. More stuff about never defeating us etc etc.
