Cheshire West and Chester Council & Ors v Pickthall [2015] EWHC 2141 (QB) (23 July 2015)

Cheshire West and Chester Council & Ors v Pickthall [2015] EWHC 2141 (QB) (23 July 2015)

The defendant's campaign constitutes harassment under the 1997 Act, and he is unlikely to establish any statutory defence, as his conduct lacks a rational link to the prevention or detection of crime and is obsessive and distressing. The restriction on his freedom of expression is proportionate. An interim injunction is justified.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 2141
Parties
Claimant: Cheshire West and Chester Council; Claimant: Steve Robinson; Claimant: David Finlay; Claimant: Michael Jones; Claimant: Helen Weltman; Defendant: Robert Pickthall
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Application for Interim Injunction (civil Harassment) / Interim Relief Hearing Before Trial
Outcome
Interim injunction granted
Legal Topics
Harassment, Freedom of Expression, Interim Injunctions, Protection From Harassment Act 1997, Article 10 ECHR, Civil Remedies, Public Officials
Civil Procedure Human Rights Tort Harassment Freedom of Expression Interim Injunctions Protection From Harassment Act 1997 Article 10 ECHR +2 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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cheshire West and Chester Council

Claimant

Steve Robinson

Claimant

David Finlay

Claimant

Michael Jones

Claimant

Helen Weltman

Claimant

Robert Pickthall

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Interim Injunction (civil Harassment) / Interim Relief Hearing Before Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's conduct amounts to harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997
  2. 2 Whether the defendant can rely on statutory defences under section 1(3) of the 1997 Act
  3. 3 Whether an interim injunction should be granted restraining further publication

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant's campaign constitutes harassment under the 1997 Act, and he is unlikely to establish any statutory defence, as his conduct lacks a rational link to the prevention or detection of crime and is obsessive and distressing. The restriction on his freedom of expression is proportionate. An interim injunction is justified.

Court Disposition

Interim injunction granted

Orders

  • Defendant restrained from further acts of harassment as specified in the injunction
  • Defendant must edit or take down his website to comply with the injunction