Edo Technology Ltd ("Edo") & Anor v Campaign To Smash Edo & Ors [2005] EWHC 2490 (QB) (4 November 2005)

Edo Technology Ltd ("Edo") & Anor v Campaign To Smash Edo & Ors [2005] EWHC 2490 (QB) (4 November 2005)

The defendants' composite document does not enable them to rely on the statutory defence under s.1(3)(a) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, as their protest was not aimed at preventing a specific, immediate or imminent crime. The issues of reasonableness under s.1(3)(c) and whether the conduct amounts to harassment remain for trial. Matters of UK foreign policy and deployment of armed forces are not non-justiciable where domestic crimes are alleged.

Citation
[2005] EWHC 2490 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: EDO Technology Limited; Claimant: David Anthony Jones; Defendant: Campaign to Smash EDO; Defendant: Bombs Out of Brighton Campaign; Defendant: Mathew Axworthy; Defendant: Simon Levin; Defendant: Christopher Osmond; Defendant: Anthony Parker; Defendant: Cynthia Schwartz; Defendant: Elizabeth Welch; Defendant: Penny Steel; Defendant: Lorna Marcham; Defendant: Tom Daly; Defendant: Jaya Nyanajoti; Defendant: Thomas Gittoes; Defendant: James Fenn; Defendant: Paul Fenn; Defendant: Richard Hollis; Defendant: Ceri Gibbons; Intervener: Attorney-General
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 November 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil / Preliminary Issues Judgment Before Trial
Outcome
Defendants cannot rely on s.1(3)(a) defence; other issues to be determined at trial.
Legal Topics
Harassment, Injunctions, Protest Law, Protection From Harassment Act 1997, Freedom of Expression, Prevention of Crime, Justiciability, International Criminal Court Act 2001
Civil Procedure Tort Human Rights Harassment Injunctions Protest Law Protection From Harassment Act 1997 Freedom of Expression +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

EDO Technology Limited

Claimant

David Anthony Jones

Claimant

Campaign to Smash EDO

Defendant

Bombs Out of Brighton Campaign

Defendant

Mathew Axworthy

Defendant

Simon Levin

Defendant

Christopher Osmond

Defendant

Anthony Parker

Defendant

Cynthia Schwartz

Defendant

Elizabeth Welch

Defendant

Penny Steel

Defendant

Lorna Marcham

Defendant

Tom Daly

Defendant

Jaya Nyanajoti

Defendant

Thomas Gittoes

Defendant

James Fenn

Defendant

Paul Fenn

Defendant

Richard Hollis

Defendant

Ceri Gibbons

Defendant

Attorney-General

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Civil / Preliminary Issues Judgment Before Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants' protest campaign constitutes harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (PHA 1997)
  2. 2 Whether the defendants can rely on statutory defences under PHA 1997 s.1(3)(a) (prevention of crime) or s.1(3)(c) (reasonableness)
  3. 3 Whether the matters of UK foreign policy and deployment of armed forces are justiciable

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants' composite document does not enable them to rely on the statutory defence under s.1(3)(a) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, as their protest was not aimed at preventing a specific, immediate or imminent crime. The issues of reasonableness under s.1(3)(c) and whether the conduct amounts to harassment remain for trial. Matters of UK foreign policy and deployment of armed forces are not non-justiciable where domestic crimes are alleged.

Court Disposition

Defendants cannot rely on s.1(3)(a) defence; other issues to be determined at trial.