Background
North Warwickshire Borough Council obtained an injunction in September 2024 prohibiting protests within Kingsbury Oil Terminal and restricting specified protest activity nearby. A power of arrest was attached under section 27 of the Police and Justice Act 2006. The orders were due to expire at 4 p.m. on 6 September 2027, subject to annual review.
At the second annual review, the Council reported that there had been no further protests at the Terminal and no breaches since the first review. It nevertheless relied on evidence that Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion remained active, that Just Stop Oil had resumed direct action, and that the Terminal continued to present serious fire and explosion risks because of its large volume of flammable liquids and proximity to residential properties. No defendant appeared or was represented.
The Court’s Holding
HHJ Emma Kelly, sitting as a High Court judge, continued the injunction and power of arrest without amendment. The court held that the absence of protests or breaches did not establish that the threat had disappeared; on the facts, it showed that the orders had achieved their intended deterrent effect. Recent direct action and Just Stop Oil’s public statements supported the conclusion that direct action had resumed and that the threat to the Terminal was higher than at the first review.
The court found no material factual or legal change warranting variation or discharge. The underlying safety risks remained, no defendant had advanced a ground for discharge, and the Council had provided full and frank updated evidence. No further annual review was ordered because the injunction and power of arrest would expire on 6 September 2027; any extension would require a formal application.
Key Takeaways
- A review of a persons-unknown injunction focuses on whether material factual or legal changes justify continuing, varying, or discharging the order, rather than rehearing the original merits.
- The cessation of prohibited activity may demonstrate an injunction’s deterrent effectiveness rather than the disappearance of the underlying threat.
- The injunction and power of arrest remain in force without amendment until 4 p.m. on 6 September 2027, unless varied or discharged earlier.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the evidence a claimant should provide at an annual review of a protest injunction, including the order’s effectiveness, current protest activity, continuing risks, and any possible grounds for variation or discharge.
It also confirms that courts may continue intrusive preventive relief despite a period without breaches when current evidence shows that the targeted risk remains real and the absence of incidents is reasonably attributable to deterrence.