Judge dismisses contempt application against fourth defendant in tree felling case
A High Court judge has dismissed an application by Sheffield City Council to have a defendant, Paul Brooke, committed to prison for contempt of court for breaching an injunction in relation to the local authority’s controversial Streets Ahead highways maintenance programme.
In August 2017 Mr Justice Males granted an injunction restraining various defendants from taking action to prevent the felling by the council and its contractor of trees on the public highway by maintaining a presence within a safety zone erected around a tree.
Last week the same judge sentenced two protesters, Simon Crump and Benoit Compin, to two months’ imprisonment, suspended for one year, after they were found to have breached the injunction.
In Sheffield City Council v Crump & Ors [2018] EWHC 1411 (QB) Mr Justice Males also ruled that a finding of contempt against a third defendant, Fran Grace, was sufficient sanction and that it was unnecessary to impose any further punishment.
However, the judge decided to reserve judgment in the case of Mr Brooke, who had given an undertaking in the original action in 2017.
In his latest ruling, handed down today [20 June], Mr Justice Males said that he had found that “in principle defence of another may provide a justification for entering a safety zone contrary to the terms of the undertaking by Mr Brooke; that Mr Brooke had a genuine albeit mistaken belief that it was necessary to do so in order to prevent immediate harm to a female protester; and that in the circumstances which existed on the day in question he did no more than was reasonably necessary in the light of the belief which he held.”
The judge stressed, however, that his decision was not a licence for future breaches of the injunction.
He said: “Two points must be kept firmly in mind. The first is that it is lawful for reasonable force to be used to remove protesters from safety zones. The second is that, according to the evidence, when felling resumed after the events of 22nd January 2018, the police took a much closer interest in attempts to remove protesters and officers would typically be stationed within a few feet of any removals to ensure that any force used was reasonable. In such circumstances it is most unlikely that any intervention by entering into a safety zone would be reasonable.”
A spokesperson for Sheffield City Council said: "We believed the case was worth bringing to court but as with all cases - including the three where defendants were found to be guilty of breaching the injunction - we have always said the outcome is rightly a decision for Mr Justice Males, and not for the council."
