KB-2025-000497 - [2025] EWHC 2330 (KB)

The background to this application is a campaign of action by persons, largely unknown, in relation to the Palestine-Israel conflict. This campaign is spearheaded by a well-organised group of individuals with strong and committed views on the Palestine-Israel conflict, who are affiliated with the group known as Cambridge for Palestine (or C4P). The Cambridge for Palestine website states that it is ‘a student-led coalition standing against Cambridge University’s complicity in apartheid and genocide.’ It appeared from the material before me that Cambridge for Palestine also has an X account, a Facebook account, and a TikTok account on which, for example, events are organised, views and demands published, and the actions being taken publicised.

This campaign has involved participants entering, occupying and remaining on the Land, blocking the access of individuals to the Land, and/or erecting tents and putting sleeping equipment on the Land (activities which have been described as ‘Direct Action’). On Instagram, Cambridge for Palestine has set out the following:

‘CAMBRIDGE ENCAMPMENT FOR PALESTINE: OUR DEMANDS

We will not move until the University of Cambridge agrees to:

1 Disclose financial and professional ties with complicit organisations

2 Divest funds and collaboration away from such organisations

3 Reinvest in Palestinian students, academics and scholars

4 Protect students at risk and become a university of sanctuary.’

The evidence before me, in particular in the witness statements of Emma Rampton, reveals a series of incidents of Direct Action over the last year or so.

An encampment on the lawn in front of King’s College Cambridge commenced on or about 6 May 2024, undertaken by Cambridge for Palestine. This encampment ended on or about 14 August 2024.

On 15 May 2024, 40-50 persons unknown entered Senate House Yard by climbing a ladder over the perimeter fence. They set up an encampment with approximately 13 tents on Senate House Yard, with the ostensible purpose of preventing graduation ceremonies from taking place at the Senate House on 17 and 18 May 2024. They departed at 10.20pm on 16 May 2024. Because of the occupation, the University had had to reorganise the degree ceremonies due to be held at the Senate House on 18 May and to hold them at various colleges.

On 22 November 2024, a group of persons unknown entered Greenwich House, activated the fire alarm and, once all staff had evacuated the building, blockaded the entrances and exits to prevent re-entry. During this time, they gained access to restricted areas of the building, opened locked cabinets and searched through them. Concerned about the confidential and commercially sensitive nature of the documents kept in Greenwich House, the University applied for and obtained an injunction on 16 December 2024 which, inter alia, prohibited the defendants from using, publishing or disclosing any documents or information obtained whilst at Greenwich House. The protesters departed Greenwich House on 6 December 2024.

On 27 November 2024 a group of persons unknown entered Senate House Yard by climbing over the perimeter fence. They set up an encampment of approximately 6 tents on Senate House Yard, with the ostensible purpose of preventing graduation ceremonies taking place at the Senate House on 30 November 2024. They departed on 30 November 2024. The consequence of this encampment was that the University again had to reorganise the degree ceremony scheduled for 30 November 2024, which was held instead in Great St Mary’s Church.

On 27 November 2024, Cambridge for Palestine stated that ‘our movement is left with no option other than principled escalation’, and that ‘The Cambridge Liberated Zone has expanded and will continue to do so.’ In further posts on 29 November 2024, Cambridge for Palestine stated that ‘Such unprecedented times require sustained escalation’, and ‘As long as there are no universities left in Gaza, Cambridge will not know normalcy.’ On 30 November 2024, after the persons unknown had left Senate House Yard, Cambridge for Palestine posted, ‘We will be back’, under the tag line ‘We Will Not Stop. We Will Not Rest.’ It was further stated that:

‘This end is a temporary one … Our encampment from last spring was only a beginning, and this one is not nearly an end. We will ensure that the University does not see normalcy until we see divestment and liberation.’

On 5 December 2024, Cambridge for Palestine posted a response to the University’s statement, dated 3 December 2024, relating to the Direct Action at the Senate House. Cambridge for Palestine stated, ‘As students of this institution, we refuse to sit idly by as our University proudly kills. “Disruption” of normalcy is the only ethical, moral choice.’ On 8 December 2024, after ending the occupation of Greenwich House, Cambridge for Palestine stated that ‘our movement will remain steadfast until justice is achieved.’

On 12 February 2025 the University issued a Claim Form seeking injunctive relief to prevent apprehended trespasses and nuisance, and on the same day issued an application for an injunction. As originally formulated, this application was for an injunction applicable to the Senate House and Senate House Yard, the Old Schools, and Greenwich House, and was for a period of five years. In advance of the hearing of this application, European Legal Support Centre (‘ELSC’) issued an application to be joined as an intervener party. That was not opposed by the University, and it was granted by Fordham J at the hearing of the University’s application on 27 February 2025. Fordham J accordingly heard submissions from Mr Kynaston on behalf of ELSC as well as from Mr Vanderman for the University. Fordham J granted an interim injunction against ‘Persons Unknown’ in relation to the Senate House and Senate House Yard until 23.00 on 1 March 2025. The essential purpose of this order, and the reason for its duration, was to avoid disruption of a degree ceremony scheduled for 1 March 2025. Fordham J ordered that there should be a return date for further consideration of the case on the first available date after 17 March 2025.

After the grant of Fordham J’s order, on 1 March 2025, Cambridge for Palestine organised a rally which took place outside Great St Mary’s Church, opposite the Senate House. Approximately 100 people were at the rally, at its height. On 2 March 2025, Cambridge for Palestine uploaded a social media post, which stated:

‘Cambridge University tried to silence us.

We will NEVER be silent while they profit from Genocide. Our call remains the same Disclose, Divest, We Will NOT Stop, We Will NOT REST.’

On 4 March 2025, red paint was sprayed on the wooden door and archway masonry which forms the west entrance to the Old Schools building. Graffiti sprayed on the masonry and wooden door read, ‘DIVEST’ and ‘ALWAYS RESIST … FREE PALESTINE’. The group called Palestine Action claimed responsibility for this, but Cambridge for Palestine republished Palestine Action’s post which had claimed responsibility, saying ‘Divest from Israeli arms or expect resistance. Full support to Palestine Action.’

The further hearing ordered by Fordham J came before Soole J on 19-21 March 2025. The University had reconsidered the relief which it was seeking on an interim basis. It sought from Soole J an interim injunction for a period expiring at 23.00 on 26 July 2025, rather than the original five-year period. The date of 26 July 2025 had been selected because it was the date of the final graduation ceremony in the academic year. The injunction was, however, sought not only in relation to the Senate House and Senate House Yard, but also in relation to Old Schools and to Greenwich House.

Prior to the hearing in front of Soole J, the National Council for Civil Liberties (Liberty) had applied to intervene, and this was permitted by Soole J. He accordingly had written and oral submissions on behalf of the University, but also on behalf of ELSC and on behalf of Liberty. ELSC opposed the grant of any relief. Liberty was neutral on that, but focused on the drafting of the order, and in particular on an initial proposal, inspired by observations of Nicklin J in MBR Acres Ltd v Curtin [2025] EWHC 331 (KB), that the defendants should be described in the order simply as ‘Persons Unknown’ with no further description. That proposal was not, in the event, pursued: see Soole Judgment, [7]. The application to Soole J proceeded on the basis that the Defendants should be described, as did the application before me.