Cheshire West and Chester Council & Ors v Pickthall

Cheshire West and Chester Council & Ors v Pickthall

The defendant's campaign constitutes harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. He failed to provide any evidence supporting his allegations or to establish a rational link between his conduct and the prevention or detection of crime. The statutory defences under section 1(3) are not available to him. The restriction on his freedom of expression is proportionate, and an interim injunction is justified.

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
Civil / Interim Injunction Application
Outcome
interim injunction granted
Legal Topics
Harassment, Interim Injunctions, Freedom of Expression, Public Officials, Statutory Defences
Civil Procedure Human Rights Tort Harassment Interim Injunctions Freedom of Expression Public Officials Statutory Defences

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
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

Civil / Interim Injunction Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's conduct constitutes harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997
  2. 2 Whether the defendant has a statutory defence under section 1(3) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997
  3. 3 Whether an interim injunction should be granted to restrain further acts of harassment

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant's campaign constitutes harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. He failed to provide any evidence supporting his allegations or to establish a rational link between his conduct and the prevention or detection of crime. The statutory defences under section 1(3) are not available to him. The restriction on his freedom of expression is proportionate, and an interim injunction is justified.

Court Disposition

interim injunction granted

Orders

  • Defendant restrained from further acts of harassment against claimants and council employees, officers, and councillors.
  • Defendant must immediately edit or take down his website TheBloodhound to comply with the injunction.