Cavan v Bunting [2025] NICA 68 (19 December 2025)

Cavan v Bunting [2025] NICA 68 (19 December 2025)

The defendant's conduct, including targeted tweets and videos associating the plaintiff with child grooming and paedophilia, constituted a course of conduct amounting to harassment under the 1997 Order. The conduct crossed the line from legitimate protest and expression into oppressive and unacceptable behaviour. The injunction was a necessary and proportionate restriction on the defendant's Article 10 rights, given the seriousness and targeted nature of the harassment.

Citation
[2025] NICA 68
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Matthew Cavan; Defendant/appellant: Jolene Bunting
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
19 December 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal by Way of Case Stated / Court of Appeal Judgment on Case Stated
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; questions answered in the affirmative.
Legal Topics
Harassment, Freedom of Expression, Injunctions, Contempt of Court, Proportionality, Protection From Harassment (northern Ireland) 1997, Article 10 ECHR, Section 12 Human Rights Act 1998
Civil Procedure Human Rights Tort Harassment Freedom of Expression Injunctions Contempt of Court Proportionality +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 3 Authorities cited 29 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Matthew Cavan

Plaintiff/respondent

Jolene Bunting

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal by Way of Case Stated / Court of Appeal Judgment on Case Stated

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's conduct amounted to harassment under the Protection from Harassment (Northern Ireland) Order 1997
  2. 2 Whether the injunction granted was lawful and sufficiently particularised
  3. 3 Whether the restriction on the defendant's Article 10 ECHR rights was justified and proportionate

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant's conduct, including targeted tweets and videos associating the plaintiff with child grooming and paedophilia, constituted a course of conduct amounting to harassment under the 1997 Order. The conduct crossed the line from legitimate protest and expression into oppressive and unacceptable behaviour. The injunction was a necessary and proportionate restriction on the defendant's Article 10 rights, given the seriousness and targeted nature of the harassment.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; questions answered in the affirmative.

Orders

  • Permanent injunction against the defendant affirmed, restraining harassment and related conduct for five years.
  • Fine of £750 for contempt of court affirmed.