Background
Beginning in August 2025, people associated or claiming association with Raise the Colours and Raise the Colours Oxfordshire attached St George’s flags and Union Flags to lampposts and other highway structures across Oxfordshire and painted similar designs on highway surfaces. Oxfordshire County Council, the highway authority for most roads in the county, repeatedly removed the flags, but they were replaced. Council workers and contractors also reported obstruction and intimidation during removal operations.
The council sought orders prohibiting named and unknown defendants from attaching or marking flags on highways without consent or statutory authorisation, obstructing removal work, and harassing council members, employees, or contractors involved in that work. Ben Cullen, Ryan Bridge, and Trudy Wells gave undertakings equivalent to injunctions. Kevin Good indicated that he would do so but never signed an undertaking, leaving the court to decide the applications against him and “persons unknown.”
The Court’s Holding
Mr Justice Dexter Dias granted final injunctions against Kevin Good and persons unknown. The court found compelling evidence of a real and imminent risk that unidentified participants would continue attaching flags and marking highways unlawfully, interfering with the council’s proprietary rights and its statutory duties to maintain highways, protect public access, and remove unauthorised material. Criminal prosecution and damages were inadequate because statutory fines were unlikely to deter the persistent conduct.
Assuming that Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights were engaged, the court held that the injunctions were lawful and proportionate. They pursued legitimate aims including preventing crime and protecting public and property rights, were confined to relevant Oxfordshire highways, prohibited unlawful rather than lawful flag-flying, and would expire after 12 months unless renewed. Affected persons retained the right to seek variation or discharge.
As to Good, the court granted summary judgment because the evidence showed a strong risk that he would continue participating in unauthorised flag activity, he had no real prospect of defending the alleged statutory offence and trespass, and there was no compelling reason for a trial. His failure to execute the promised undertaking and his subsequent online comment supported the inference of likely future misconduct.
Key Takeaways
- A highway authority may seek equitable relief to prevent conduct that interferes with its proprietary rights and performance of statutory highway functions.
- A final injunction may bind unidentified future participants when detailed evidence establishes a compelling need and a real, imminent threat of unlawful conduct causing harm.
- Expression and assembly rights do not confer a right to attach flags to public highway infrastructure without the highway authority’s consent or statutory authorisation.
Why It Matters
The decision applies the Supreme Court’s framework for “newcomer” injunctions to coordinated, recurring interference with highway infrastructure. It confirms that the High Court’s equitable jurisdiction can provide prospective relief where ordinary statutory penalties are insufficient to prevent persistent breaches of public and civil law.
It also illustrates the safeguards required for an order capable of binding people not yet identified: conduct-based definitions, clear geographic and temporal limits, effective notice, and rights to seek variation or discharge.