Court Injunction to ban members of RSPB et al from Heathrow


Subject: [hacan-news] Update July
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 12:40:51 +0100

Court Injunction

The injunction will be heard is on Wednesday 1st August at the High
Court on the Strand . The Case, billed as Heathrow Limited Airport
against Garman, is due to start at 10.30am. It is down to last all
day. All support welcome outside the court before the hearing starts
and in the public gallery in the court.

You will almost certainly have seen from the extensive coverage that
it has received in the media that BAA has is seeking a court
injunction against a range of organisations, including HACAN. The
injunction, technically taken out in the name of Heathrow Airport
Limited, seeks to prevent named individuals and organisations from
going to Heathrow Airport or land owned by BAA (or a subsidiary of
BAA) in the vicinity of the airports for the purposes of
demonstrating. The injunction also seeks to stop the named
organisations and their members from using the 'arterial
infrastructure serving Heathrow Airport ' if it is believed they may
be travelling to demonstrate.

According to the BAA application, this 'shall include':

* Platforms 6 and 7 of the railway station known as Paddington
Station, London W2;
* All railway trains and carriages known as and/or operating under the
names "The Heathrow Express" and "Heathrow Connect";
* All railway trains and carriages travelling to and from Heathrow
Airport ;
* All railway trains and carriages operating upon the Piccadilly line
of the London Underground System ('the Piccadilly Line');
* The M4 Motorway and all service stations between and including
junctions 3 and 6;
* The M25 Motorway and all service stations between and including
junctions 13 and 15".

The named individuals a

* John Stewart, Chair of HACAN and Chair of Airpor****ch
* Geraldine Nicholson, Chair of NOTRAG ((No Third Runway Action Group)
* Joss Garman and Leo Murray (both part of the Plane Stupid network)

The named organisations a

* HACAN,
* NOTRAG,
* Plane Stupid,
* Airpor****ch
* and all members of these organisations which includes all individual
and group members of HACAN.

Since Airpor****ch is an umbrella group whose supporters include
national organisations such as the RSPB, Greenpeace, Friends of the
Earth, the Woodland Trust, the National Trust and the Campaign to
Protect Rural England , the number of individuals against whom BAA is
seeking an injunction runs into millions!

As you will probably have seen, the media coverage has highlighted the
ridiculousness of it all. And we understand that BAA has been
inundated by phone calls from the public.

Although BAA is seeking an injunction for an indefinite period of time
(!), it is clear that what concerns them is the Camp for Climate
Action which intends to set up tents for a week (14th - 21st August)
somewhere in the vicinity of Heathrow.

HACAN has always made it clear that it is not a direct action
organisation; that it does not take part in acts of civil
disobedience. Of course, individuals members of HACAN are free to
take direct action (and have done so) but not in the name of HACAN,
nor as representatives of HACAN.
The court hearing is on Wednesday 1st August at the High Court on the
Strand . The Case, billed as Heathrow Limited Airport against Garman,
is due to start at 10.30am. It is down to last all day. All support
welcome outside the court before the hearing starts and in the public
gallery in the court.

Consultation on 3rd Runway and Ending Runway Alternation

The Department has said that the consultation will not start before
the end of September but in the autumn. We are reading that as the
civil servant way of saying October! HACAN, in conjunction with the
local authorities and a number of other organisations, will be
mounting what will be one of its biggest-ever campaigns. Details will
follow shortly.

John Stewart

I think BAA probably have the right idea. People don't want their
flights delayed.
They ley people use their land for travel purposes but some people
abuse the privilege.

SB wrote:
Court Injunction to ban members of RSPB et al from Heathrow


Subject: [hacan-news] Update July
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 12:40:51 +0100

Court Injunction

The injunction will be heard is on Wednesday 1st August at the High
Court on the Strand . The Case, billed as Heathrow Limited Airport
against Garman, is due to start at 10.30am. It is down to last all
day. All support welcome outside the court before the hearing starts
and in the public gallery in the court.

http://www.uk-airport-news.info/heat...ews-150707.htm

"Business Weekly magazine claims that Ferrovial, the Spanish owner of the
UK's largest airports operator BAA, has been 'making a strong case to the
Competition Commission to leave BAA's London airports portfolio intact'."

No matter how much we disaprove of BAA's latest stunt, we won't have the
option of voting with our feet until BAA's monopoly on London airports is
broken up.

On 30 Jul, 11:35, "John Rowland"
wrote:
No matter how much we disaprove of BAA's latest stunt, we won't have the
option of voting with our feet until BAA's monopoly on London airports is
broken up.

Luton is as cloase as Stansted (and a lot more convienent for the rest
of the country) and isn't BAA. I use it, and Eurostar, wherever
possible.

On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 10:36:11 -0700, SB wrote:

(...)

The named individuals a

* John Stewart, Chair of HACAN and Chair of Airpor****ch
* Geraldine Nicholson, Chair of NOTRAG ((No Third Runway Action Group)
* Joss Garman and Leo Murray (both part of the Plane Stupid network)

The named organisations a

* HACAN,
* NOTRAG,
* Plane Stupid,
* Airpor****ch
* and all members of these organisations which includes all individual
and group members of HACAN.

(...)


John Stewart


Posted by John Stewart? What a coincidence!

SB wrote:

The injunction will be heard is on Wednesday 1st August at the High
Court on the Strand . The Case, billed as Heathrow Limited Airport
against Garman, is due to start at 10.30am. It is down to last all
day. All support welcome outside the court before the hearing starts
and in the public gallery in the court.

Looks like the time has been changed:

COURT 13
Before MRS JUSTICE SWIFT
Wednesday 1st August, 2007
At 2 o'clock
UNROBED
APPLICATION NOTICES
IHQ/07/0616 Heathrow Airport Ltd & ors v Garman & ors
IHQ/07/0648 Same v Same

http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/cms/cause.htm
--
Michael Hoffman

Michael Hoffman wrote:

Before MRS JUSTICE SWIFT
Wednesday 1st August, 2007
At 2 o'clock
UNROBED
APPLICATION NOTICES
IHQ/07/0616 Heathrow Airport Ltd & ors v Garman & ors
IHQ/07/0648 Same v Same

According to Indymedia, Mrs. Justice Swift happens to be a member of the
RSPB, and a benefactor of The Campaign for the Protection of Rural
England and The National Trust.

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/08/377488.html
--
Michael Hoffman

On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 21:08:49 +0100, Michael Hoffman
wrote:

Michael Hoffman wrote:

Before MRS JUSTICE SWIFT
Wednesday 1st August, 2007
At 2 o'clock
UNROBED
APPLICATION NOTICES
IHQ/07/0616 Heathrow Airport Ltd & ors v Garman & ors
IHQ/07/0648 Same v Same

According to Indymedia, Mrs. Justice Swift happens to be a member of the
RSPB, and a benefactor of The Campaign for the Protection of Rural
England and The National Trust.

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/08/377488.html

Thus meaning, no doubt, she will be required to step down due to COI.

James Farrar wrote:
On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 21:08:49 +0100, Michael Hoffman
wrote:

Michael Hoffman wrote:

Before MRS JUSTICE SWIFT
Wednesday 1st August, 2007
At 2 o'clock
UNROBED
APPLICATION NOTICES
IHQ/07/0616 Heathrow Airport Ltd & ors v Garman & ors
IHQ/07/0648 Same v Same
According to Indymedia, Mrs. Justice Swift happens to be a member of the
RSPB, and a benefactor of The Campaign for the Protection of Rural
England and The National Trust.

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/08/377488.html

Thus meaning, no doubt, she will be required to step down due to COI.

No, because BAA's lawyer said he did not object to her hearing the case.
They claim that they never meant to bring the injunction against
millions of people, only four. Well, that's what BAA is claiming anyway.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...port.activists
--
Michael Hoffman

Michael Hoffman wrote:

They claim that they never meant to bring the injunction against
millions of people, only four. Well, that's what BAA is claiming anyway.

Here's another story from The Independent
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/article2826195.ece:

"""
Amid scenes of near farce at the Royal Courts of Justice, Justice
Caroline Swift, asked Timothy Lawson-Cruttenden, the lawyer representing
BAA's subsidiary, Heathrow Airport Limited, to clarify the terms of the
injunction he was seeking, stating: "I have to know what I am being
asked to do."...

Justice Swift said she was "frankly puzzled" and demanded a clear
explanation of BAA's intentions when the hearing continues today.
"""
--
Michael Hoffman