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 Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The defendant failed to provide any credible evidence supporting his allegations or a rational link between his conduct and the prevention or detection of crime. The statutory defences under s.1(3) do not apply. The restriction on the defendant's freedom of expression is proportionate in the circumstances. An interim injunction is justified to restrain further harassment.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 2141 (QB)
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
Interim Injunction Application Under Protection From Harassment Act 1997 (cpr Part 8) / Interim Relief (pre Trial)
Outcome
Interim injunction granted (with modifications)
Legal Topics
Harassment, Freedom of Expression, Interim Injunctions, Public Officials, Defamation, Proportionality
Civil Procedure Human Rights Tort Harassment Freedom of Expression Interim Injunctions Public Officials Defamation +1 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
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

Interim Injunction Application Under Protection From Harassment Act 1997 (cpr Part 8) / Interim Relief (pre Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's conduct constitutes harassment under s.3 and/or s.3A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997
  2. 2 Whether the defendant has a statutory defence under s.1(3) of the 1997 Act (prevention/detection of crime or reasonableness)
  3. 3 Whether an interim injunction should be granted and in what terms, balancing Article 10 ECHR rights

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant's campaign constitutes harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The defendant failed to provide any credible evidence supporting his allegations or a rational link between his conduct and the prevention or detection of crime. The statutory defences under s.1(3) do not apply. The restriction on the defendant's freedom of expression is proportionate in the circumstances. An interim injunction is justified to restrain further harassment.

Court Disposition

Interim injunction granted (with modifications)

Orders

  • Defendant restrained from further acts of harassment against claimants and those they represent.
  • Defendant must immediately edit or take down his website to comply with the injunction; may continue to publish non-breaching material.