National Farmers' Union & Ors v Tiernan & Ors

Factual and Procedural Background

The Claimants sought to have the First Defendant committed for contempt of court based on nine alleged breaches of an interim injunction originally granted by Judge Turner on 22 August 2013 and continued by Judge Popplewell on 5 September 2013. The injunction was designed to prevent interference with a pilot badger cull scheduled for autumn 2013 in West Gloucestershire and West Somerset, aimed at reducing bovine tuberculosis. The First Defendant was a spokesman for an unincorporated association opposing the cull.

The Protection of Badgers Act 1992 authorizes the Secretary of State to grant licences for killing badgers to prevent disease spread, under which the pilot cull was conducted. Previous legal challenges to the cull had been rejected at first instance and on appeal.

The injunction prohibited the Defendants from trespassing on private land within the Cull Zone without permission, harassing or intimidating protected persons by filming or photographing them or their property, publishing personal information about them, and other related acts. The Defendants were also required to notify their members of the order via specified websites and social media platforms.

The First Defendant was present when the original order was made and was served with it by email and post. The Claimants alleged multiple breaches of the order, including failure to notify members, harassment, trespassing, publishing prohibited images, making excessive noise near protected land, and demonstrating near protected business premises.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the First Defendant committed contempt of court by breaching the terms of the interim injunction.
2. Whether each of the nine specific allegations of breach of the injunction was proved to the criminal standard.
3. What penalty or penalties should be imposed if contempt is established.

Arguments of the Parties

Claimants' Arguments

• The First Defendant failed to notify members of the injunction via specified websites and social media as required.
• The Defendant harassed and intimidated protected persons by filming them and publishing videos online without consent.
• The Defendant trespassed on private land within the Cull Zone without permission.
• The Defendant made excessive noise near protected land and demonstrated within prohibited proximity to protected business premises.
• Evidence included witness testimony, video recordings, and photographic evidence demonstrating breaches beyond reasonable doubt.
• The Defendant's conduct showed defiance of the court order and undermined the rule of law.

First Defendant's Arguments

• The Defendant did not provide sworn evidence but submitted an unsworn, unsigned document lacking a statement of truth.
• He argued the Claimants had not proved the breaches, particularly claiming that the order had been publicised.
• The Defendant contended the injunction restrictions applied only to lawful culling processes and asserted a right to monitor the cull for legality.
• Regarding the demonstration near the business premises, he argued there was no reason to believe the building was occupied at the time.
• The Defendant denied disrespect for the law, claiming opposition only to badger culls and certain organizations.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court considered each of the nine alleged breaches individually, applying the criminal standard of proof. The evidence included witness testimony, video recordings, photographic evidence, and documentary proof of service and knowledge of the order.

Regarding failure to notify members, the court found credible evidence that the Defendant did not comply with the mandatory requirement to post the order on specified websites, and that there was active discouragement among activists to discuss the injunction, amounting to defiance.

On harassment and intimidation, the court accepted the testimony of protected persons and reviewed video evidence showing the Defendant filming and publishing footage without consent, breaching prohibitions on photographing and publishing images of protected persons and their property.

The court rejected the Defendant's argument that the injunction only applied during lawful culling, emphasizing that the breaches related to the order's terms irrespective of the cull's legality.

Evidence of trespass was supported by witness identification and video footage showing the Defendant on private land without permission.

The court carefully scrutinized evidence relating to demonstrations near protected business premises, noting the need for specificity and caution with hearsay but ultimately accepted reasonable inferences based on photographic and measurement evidence.

Overall, the court found the Claimants had discharged their burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt in relation to each breach, noting the Defendant's failure to provide credible contrary evidence or demonstrate attempts to comply.

Holding and Implications

The court held that the Claimants had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the First Defendant was in contempt of court by breaching the interim injunction in nine respects.

The court decided to hear submissions and consider evidence on the appropriate penalty or penalties to impose, either immediately or at a later date.

The direct effect of this decision is that the First Defendant faces committal for contempt with potential sanctions to follow. No new legal precedent was established; the ruling applies established principles to the facts of this case.