KB-2024-004175 - [2025] EWHC 2050 (KB)

In addition to the evidence that had previously been considered by Bourne J, Tipples J and Murray J, (which I received in extensive bundles that I have read and considered carefully) I have also scrutinised the further statements and associated exhibits relied upon by the Claimant from Scott Patterson (21^st May 2025) Nicholas Wargent (23^rd May 2025) and Manan Singh (27^th May 2025).

The evidence establishes that since the grant of the initial relief by Bourne J on 20^th December 2024 there have been just two instances of unlawful protest at the Shipley site. One of those incidents, on the 28^th January 2025, caused major disruption and led to the addition of two further named defendants to the Claim (Defendants 19 and 20). That position, when compared and contrasted to the position in 2024 and earlier, demonstrates a marked decrease in unlawful protest and a marked decrease in the harm caused by such protests (financial or otherwise). I am satisfied that this decrease in unlawful activity is evidence of the relief having its intended effect, rather than evidence that the risk of further unlawful protest has dissipated.

The proscription of Palestine Action and the removal of the group’s website does not in my judgement diminish the risk of further unlawful protest. It might rather be said that whilst the risk remains the same, the ability to monitor and respond to that risk has been reduced as following proscription a number of alternative groups have been rapidly formed that all pursue the same aims with similar tactics being deployed.

The evidence clearly establishes that unlawful protests of the type suffered by the Claimant continue at other sites and against other bodies and companies that are not themselves protected by injunctive relief. The targeting of the offices of Keystone Law and the solicitor with conduct of this litigation on behalf of the Claimants demonstrates that when injuncted from unlawful protest at the Claimant’s sites the focus has shifted to attacking those associated with the Claimant and concerned in obtaining injunctive relief. Were that relief to be withdrawn I have no doubt that the focus would return to Teledyne who would be subject to further unlawful action.

The removal of the Palestine Action website, which listed Teledyne and its sites, described them as ‘targets’, advocated unlawful attacks upon them, and educated those visiting the webpages how to conduct those attacks and how to seek to avoid detection having committed them, does not materially reduce the risk to the Claimant given the emergence of other groups and Teledyne having been publicly named as a target for a prolonged period of time in material that was available to download and easily accessible.

The tentative ceasefire that had recently been announced prior to the hearing before Tipples J has not resulted in any lasting end to hostilities. Support for the pro-Palestinian cause remains significant with protests continuing (both lawful and unlawful) on a regular basis.

I am satisfied on all of the evidence that the risk of further unlawful action targeting the Claimant’s sites remains high and that the relief granted to date has been effective is reducing that risk to the levels that have pertained following the initial grant in December 2024.