Campaigners claim victory as High Court throws out injunction against protests at drone factory

Campaigners celebrate outside court after injunction set aside

Campaigners celebrate outside court after injunction set aside

Campaigners claimed complete victory over Israeli-owned drone engine manufacturer UAV Engines yesterday when the company withdrew its application to the High Court to continue an injunction taken out against protesters.   Worse was to follow for the company as Judge Purle agreed with campaigner’s arguments that the injunction should never have been granted in the first place and the High Court set the Order aside ab initio (that is, ‘from the beginning’) .  The Judge stated:

“What I was not told [when granting the injunction on June 30 2015] and clearly should have been was that there had been a long series of peaceful protests in the vicinity of the claimants premises going back many years and there had been a further mass demonstration in October 2014…  It may have been that some limited injunction might have been appropriate.  However the fact is that those under ex parte relief are under a strict duty of disclosure… Something therefore went wrong in the obtaining on that order.  It seems to me that the appropriate course is to discharge the order ab initio…  Accordingly the injunction I granted on 30 June is dismissed ab initio and it is as if the injunction never existed.”

UAV Engines Ltd is a subsidiary of Elbit Systems, one of Israel’s largest arms companies and a producer of drones and other military technology used in Israeli military assaults on Gaza. Drone engines produced at the Shenstone factory near Birmingham are exported to Israel.

Protests and vigils have been held by anti-drone and Palestine solidarity campaigners at the site since 2009. The injunction – granted in an ex-parte hearing on 30 June 2015 days before a large national protest dubbed ‘Block the Factory‘ took place on 6 July – forbade nine named defendants and any protester from going within 250 metres of the companies’ Shenstone site.  The first campaigners knew about the injunction was when they turned up at the demonstration on 6 July.

At a subsequent hearing after the 6 July protest, the High Court partially amended the injunction, lifting the 250 metre exclusion zone.  Campaigners successfully argued that the order was draconian and prevented them from exercising their right to free speech and to peaceful and lawful protest at a factory manufacturing weapons used in human rights abuses abroad.  The injunction itself however remained in place forbidding protesters from trespassing on UAV Engines property or from harassing the company.

In subsequent statements and legal arguments campaigners – and lawyers acting pro bono for one of the named defendant’s, Maya Evans of VCNV UK – argued that the UAV Engines had in effect misled the court when it applied for the injunction by not revealing the long history of peaceful protests at the factory going back to 2009.  Instead the company had told a partial story focusing on one protest in which campaigners had occupied the roof of the factory and a mysterious air-gun incident in which a pellet had reportedly been fired at the building.

Months of legal preparation and gathering of statements by campaigners and activists took place ahead of this week’s hearing on 27 October.  In the last few days however it seem the company got cold feet and minutes before the hearing we learned that they wanted to withdraw the claim.  That was not enough for campaigners however as we argued in court that the injunction should never have been granted in the first place and should be set aside.  After some brief exchanges in court Judge Purle agreed.

Thanks must go to Bindmans solicitors and barrister Owen Greenhall of Garden Chambers, both of whom acted pro bono and to Dan of London Palestine Action and Hilary of Boycott Israel Network who did so much work behind the scenes.



Categories: Drone campaigning, Israel and drones

Tags: , , , ,

1 reply

  1. Congratulations on your success in overturning the injunction Alan and Jean of Fleetwood

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s