Edo Technology Ltd ("Edo") & Anor v Campaign To Smash Edo & Ors

Edo Technology Ltd ("Edo") & Anor v Campaign To Smash Edo & Ors

The defendants cannot rely on section 1(3)(a) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 as their composite defence does not disclose an intention to prevent a specific, immediate or imminent crime; their campaign is long-term and not directed at preventing a particular imminent offence. The reasonableness defence under section 1(3)(c) remains open for trial. The court will not rule on justiciability of UK foreign policy or military deployment at this stage.

Parties
Claimant: EDO Technology Limited; Claimant: David Anthony Jones; Defendant: Campaign to Smash EDO; 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
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 November 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil / Preliminary Issues Judgment Before Trial
Outcome
Defendants' third head of defence (prevention of crime under s1(3)(a)) struck out; first and second heads of defence (denial of harassment and reasonableness) to proceed to trial.
Legal Topics
Harassment, Injunctions, Protest Rights, Defences Under Protection From Harassment Act, Justiciability, Prevention of Crime, Reasonableness, International Criminal Law
Civil Procedure Tort Human Rights Harassment Injunctions Protest Rights Defences Under Protection From Harassment Act Justiciability +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

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

Procedural Posture

Civil / Preliminary Issues Judgment Before Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants' protest campaign amounts to harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997
  2. 2 Whether the defendants can rely on the defence of preventing crime or reasonableness under section 1(3) of the PHA 1997
  3. 3 Whether the alleged crimes to be prevented must be specific and imminent

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants cannot rely on section 1(3)(a) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 as their composite defence does not disclose an intention to prevent a specific, immediate or imminent crime; their campaign is long-term and not directed at preventing a particular imminent offence. The reasonableness defence under section 1(3)(c) remains open for trial. The court will not rule on justiciability of UK foreign policy or military deployment at this stage.

Court Disposition

Defendants' third head of defence (prevention of crime under s1(3)(a)) struck out; first and second heads of defence (denial of harassment and reasonableness) to proceed to trial.

Orders

  • Parties to consider consequential orders following this judgment.