QB-2022-001098 - [2025] EWHC 1768 (KB)

The evidence before me, particularly from the fifth and sixth witness statements of Ms Stebbing demonstrates that the threat of direct action at and against the Sites continues to be a real one.

First, there is direct evidence from JSO itself acknowledging the effectiveness of injunctions in deterring their actions. A tweet from 13 September 2023 stated, in relation to protests on highways:

“Disruption is frustrating, but we have no other choice. Fossil fuel companies have taken out private injunctions that makes protests impossible at oil refineries, oil depots and even petrol stations…”

This strongly suggests that the injunctions covering oil refineries have compelled JSO to target other infrastructure and, conversely, that the removal of the injunction would invite renewed activity of the sort that it was designed to prevent.

Secondly, other courts have also recently found there to be a continuing threat in cases similar to the present application (see Valero (above) and Exolum Pipeline Systems Ltd v Persons Unknown - 25 February 2025, Swift J reviewing the order made in that case in 2024 – see Exolum Pipeline System Ltd & Ors v Persons Unknown [2024] EWHC 1015 (KB)).

Thirdly, specific incidents indicate ongoing interest in the Sites. For example, in December 2023, an individual trespassed on the Fawley Site to film its layout by drone, subsequently publishing the footage online, which has gathered over 146,000 views to date. Whilst some time ago and not overtly a protest, the filming of the site and the high number of continuing views demonstrates a persistent interest in the Claimants’ infrastructure. Broader interest in the Claimants’ assets across England by environmental activists is also described in Ms Stebbing’s evidence.

Fourthly, XR and JSO continue to focus their attention on the oil and gas sector. Recent examples include multiple environmental activist groups, including JSO, targeting airports in Europe in July-August 2024, with JSO stating that "areas of key importance to the fossil fuel economy will be declared sites of civil resistance around the world". In October 2024, XR activists blockaded the United Kingdom Oil & Gas plc production site in Surrey, and in January 2025, XR occupied the Manchester office of an insurance broker, because it was involved, it was said, in insuring fossil fuel projects. Direct action by other related groups, such as Shut the System and Youth Demand, also occurred in 2025.

Fifthly, whilst JSO issued a press release on 27 March 2025 stating it would be “hanging up the hi vis” at the end of April 2025, the evidence in Ms Stebbing’s sixth witness statement casts significant doubt on the finality of this change in approach. The press release itself contained a "Note to Editors" that is hard to reconcile with an unequivocal renunciation of direct action. More significantly, undercover reporting on 16 May 2025 referred to an alleged recording of JSO indicating it had not disbanded, prompting JSO to email its mailing list on 21 May 2025 stating: “GB News was right for once. We are “plotting a very big comeback””. The email further suggested that this renewed campaign might operate under a new title albeit with the same aims and conducted by the same protesters:

“Just Stop Oil was just the beginning. A new campaign is in the works—one that will build on our knowledge and success as Just Stop Oil and will face the grinding injustice of our political and economic system head on. We're just getting started.”

Similar statements by XR in the past, that it was relinquishing particular forms of protest, have not been honoured. On 19 May 2025, JSO posted a social media photo stating "JUST GETTING STARTED". A Times report in June 2025 indicated JSO activists were recruiting for Youth Demand, with events advertised using the JSO logo, and an organiser quoted as saying,

"This is an inhale before we breath out and expand into brand new territory, into something even bigger than we’ve tried before. This is the start of something genuinely thrilling".

As Linden J observed in his judgment in this matter [67]:

“It would have been very easy for Extinction Rebellion or Just Stop Oil to give assurances or evidence to the court that there was no intention to return to their activities of 2021/2022, and no risk of trespass on the Sites or damage to property by protesters in the foreseeable future, but they did not do so.”

It may of course be that any leadership or governance that exists within these campaigning movements is limited and that a binding assurance from the centre cannot in fact be given. That in itself would make it difficult to rely upon any announcement that there had been a cessation of the activities at which the injunction is aimed. Equally it continues to be the position that no assurances have been given which leads me to conclude that there remains a real risk of direct action from JSO or XR or those connected with their campaigns.