Following an injunction order granted by Lavender J on 21 September 2021 the claimant National Highways Ltd were successful in an application to commit Benjamin Buse, 36, to prison for breach of that order. This was part of the high profile ‘Insulate Britain’ protests widely reported on at the time.
The High Court was told that on the morning of 8th October 2021, at 8.35am, police were alerted by construction workers that a large group of protestors were running on to the road at the Waltham Cross Interchange roundabout at Junction 25 on the M25. When the police arrived they found a group of 15 to 20 protestors sitting or lying in the road wearing high visibility vests, some of whom were holding Insulate Britain banners. Both lanes of the carriageway leading from the M25 slip road to the roundabout were blocked. By the time the police arrived, there was a long line of traffic leading to the protestors’ location.
The court was told that Dr Buse had “rushed on to the road glued to” a fellow protestor before being removed by police officers. The total duration of his protest was some 10 minutes.
In her Judgment of 17th November 2021 The President of the Queen’s Bench Division Dame Victoria Sharp, sitting with Mr Justice Chamberlain, said inter alia:
“It is integral to the rule of law, and to the fair and peaceful resolution of disputes, first, that orders made by the court must be obeyed, unless and until they are set aside or subject to successful challenge on appeal, and secondly, that a mechanism exists to enforce orders made by the court against those who breach them.”
“In a democratic society which recognises the right to freedom of peaceful assembly, protests causing some degree of inconvenience are to be expected and, up to a point, tolerated. But the words “up to a point” are important. Ordinary members of the public have rights too, including the right to use the highways. The public’s toleration of peaceful protest depends on an understanding that, in a society subject to the rule of law, the balance between the protestors’ right to protest and the right of members of the public to use the highways is to be determined not by the say-so of the protestors, but according to the law, as applied in the circumstances of the particular case by independent and impartial courts.”
“The harm caused by breach of the court’s order therefore goes beyond the inconvenience and economic damage we have mentioned. By deliberately defying the M25 Order, these defendants broke the social contract under which in a democratic society the public can properly be expected to tolerate peaceful protest.”
“Having regard to the culpability and harm caused by the defendants’ actions, we consider the custody threshold is passed. We have considered whether any other penalty would suffice. However, in our judgment, no lesser sanction than an order for imprisonment would adequately mark the gravity of the defendants’ conduct or adequately deter them and others from breaching this and other associated orders.”
Dr Buse was sentenced to immediate imprisonment for 4 months.
A few weeks later, on December 15th, before a differently constituted court of the QB Division, Dr Buse received an additional 30-day consecutive sentence for breach of an order, again involving protests on the M25. It is notable that 7 of the 9 defendants involved on that occasion, who were not already in prison, received suspended sentences.
During that hearing Dr Buse told the Court that “prison had been a very sobering experience” for him and he was “now prepared to apologise for his breach of the order, and undertook not to breach the order again”.
In his judgment, handed down on December 15th, of Lord Justice Dingemans said “In the event that the first defendant makes an application to purge his contempt that includes all of the penalties imposed on him, any such application should be heard by a court whose constitution includes, if possible, at least one member of the court in Heyatawin and others.”
Indeed that application to purge his contempt was made, and both members of the original court assembled today, 21st December 2021 to hear the application. Would he be home for Christmas?
Following a 52-minute-wait whilst the video link to the prison was established the court heard submissions from Mr Owen Greenhall (instructed by Hodge Jones & Allen), appearing for the appellant, Benjamin Buse.
Explaining that his client “has very much learnt his lesson” Mr Greenhall explained that Dr Buse very much regretted the “very significant impact” his imprisonment had afflicted on his family. The court was told there was “a very real possibility” he could lose his job if he wasn’t released.
Taking the court through the 8 factors set out in the 2010 case of ‘CJ v Flintshire Borough Council’ Mr Greenhall concluded his submissions with reference to ‘special factor’ of the circumstances of his family. We were told Dr Buse’s mother has a medical condition which was deteriorating rapidly.
In handing down the Courts Judgment, the President of the Queen’s Bench Division Dame Victoria Sharp said that at the time of the initial imposition of the custodial sentence there was “no apology” and no “undertaking was offered…in the absence of an express intention to comply with the order it was not right to suspend it.“
Considering “the strong compassionate factor” of his families circumstances the judge said that after “looking at the matter in the round we have decided the two orders should now be discharged… The court accepts your apology and undertaking. You will be released immediately.“
This post will be updated with a link to the published judgment when it’s made available.
Queen’s Bench Division
21st December 2021 2pm In-Person
QB-2021-003576 National Highways Limited v Benjamin Buse
QB-2021-003626 National Highways Limited v Benjamin Buse
QB-2021-003737 National Highways Limited v Benjamin Buse
Before The President of the Queen’s Bench Division and Mr Justice Chamberlain
Court 5, Royal Courts of Justice
Mouse in the Court 