High Court publishes reasons for council injunction against flags on lampposts

In Oxfordshire County Council v Cullen & Ors [2026] EWHC 2019 (KB) (31 July 2026), Mr Justice Dias granted a 12-month injunction against persons unknown and one named defendant, Kevin Good, after finding the council had exhausted alternative enforcement options.

The case centred around the act of attaching flags to lampposts and other road-side infrastructure, which had been taking place across the county since August last year.

Oxfordshire applied for a full injunction blocking the practice earlier this year, after having issued a separate legal notice in March, which failed to stop the practice.

Council staff also worked to take the flags down. However, the activity continued.

At the High Court, Dias J found that erecting the flags amounted to an interference with the council’s proprietary rights, a trespass, and prima facie a criminal offence under the Highways Act 1980.

The judge accepted that Articles 10 (freedom of expression) and 11 (peaceful assembly) under the European Convention on Human Rights were engaged, but concluded the interference was proportionate because patriotism could be expressed lawfully in other ways.

He said: “By affixing flags to highway structures without consent or lawful authorisation, individuals are prima facie committing a criminal offence. This a significant factor in the fair balance evaluation.

“The affixing is also, for reasons explained, likely to amount to trespass contrary to the claimant's vested proprietary rights.

“If the animating idea is to express patriotism, one must consider alternative avenues for such expression.”

He later added: “Patriotism can be expressed in many other ways than trespassing and committing criminal offences and particularly, as the filed evidence reveals, where the road safety of the public is or may be jeopardised.”

Elsewhere, Dias J concluded that the steps the council took to avoid a formal application in court were ‘proportionate’ and that ‘it reached a point where the intervention of the court became necessary’."

These pre-injunction application steps included removing the flags, and later serving a legal notice.

The judge also said that he was satisfied on the evidence that prosecuting identified individuals under the 1980 Act would not provide sufficient relief to the claimant and would be unlikely to deter the activity.

The judgment continued: “The affixing of flags and the painting of insignia on the highway has continued consistently and persistently since August 2025. There is little prospect absent an injunction that it will stop.”

Dias J added: "The continuation of affixing flags would unquestionably breach the domestic law. The importance of the location to the ‘protesters’ (affixers of flags) is that they will be prominently displayed and visible on public highways.

“Moreover, such public flying of flags creates clear risks to road safety, as attested to both by the police, the council and residents, and can be distracting to users of the highway.

“The affixing of flags is an interference with the proprietary rights of the claimant, a trespass, and prima facie a criminal offence created by Parliament directed at the safe regulation of the highway.”

The judge ultimately granted a final injunction against persons unknown and Kevin Good. Three other named defendants avoided injunctions by giving undertakings not to engage in future flag-related activity.

Dias J said he had “no hesitation in concluding that absent a restraining injunction, a substantial group of unknown individuals will affix flags in Oxfordshire contrary to the criminal law and the proprietary rights of the highway authority”.

He added: “As the Supreme Court said in Wolverhampton, if injunctions were available only against identifiable individuals, the ‘anonymity of wrongdoers’ would grant them an effective ‘immunity from the operation of the law’.

“However, I take such an exercise of equitable discretion very seriously, given that the injunction applies, as the Supreme Court said in Wolverhampton (para 143(i)), ‘potentially to anyone in the world’, at least against anyone who intends to affix flags without consent or authorisation from enactment within Oxfordshire.”

He continued: “Nevertheless, as a court of inherent jurisdiction, the High Court possesses the power, and bears the responsibility, to act to maintain the rule of law (Wolverhampton, para 18).

“I judge that granting an injunction against persons unknown on these facts maintains and preserves the rule of law, including providing an effective remedy to prevent future legal wrongs.

“I judge that the equitable discretion is sufficiently flexible and adaptable to circumstance to meet the facts of this case and provide relief, although it may not completely fall within the categories of previously granted injunctions.”

Adam Carey