High Court Grants Injunction against protestors

riemann · 27-08-2019 04:13PM #1

https://www.rte.ie/news/2019/0827/1071106-beef-prices/

"The owners of up to a dozen meat plants have been granted temporary High Court injunctions restraining groups of protesters from blockading their factories and intimidating staff and suppliers."

Could someone explain why a high court injunction was required in this case?

I'd have thought if someone was acting illegally anywhere, they could be arrested and charged?

Why the need for a high court injunction?

coylemj · 27-08-2019 05:17PM

riemann wrote: »

Could someone explain why a high court injunction was required in this case?

I'd have thought if someone was acting illegally anywhere, they could be arrested and charged?

Why the need for a high court injunction?

Because if the Gardai simply barrelled in and arrested the original protestors, they would quickly be replaced by more protestors.

It's the same when protestors (pick your cause) sit down on O'Connell Bridge or outside the GPO on a Saturday. Or outside Leinster House on a day the Dail is sitting. And is why the Gardai never do anything about it.

GM228 · 27-08-2019 05:25PM

coylemj wrote: »

riemann wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/2019/0827/1071106-beef-prices/

"The owners of up to a dozen meat plants have been granted temporary High Court injunctions restraining groups of protesters from blockading their factories and intimidating staff and suppliers."

Could someone explain why a high court injunction was required in this case?

I'd have thought if someone was acting illegally anywhere, they could be arrested and charged?

Why the need for a high court injunction?

Because if the Gardai simply barrelled in and arrested the original protestors, they would quickly be replaced by more protestors.

It's the same when protestors (pick your cause) sit down on O'Connell Bridge or outside the GPO on a Saturday. Or outside Leinster House on a day the Dail is sitting. And is why the Gardai never do anything about it.

Gardaí "never do anything about it" because there is a constitutional right to (peaceful) protest, it is subject to public order and morality and it is on that basis that injunctions are sought.

Irishphotodesk · 27-08-2019 05:38PM

the fact that a delegation from China were coming soon and a protest outside the factories could result in years of negotiations collapsing which would be bad for the company and bad for the workers.

Hence the "need" for an injunction, the matter will be heard later in the week which could result in the injunction continued or the protests allowed.

riemann · 27-08-2019 06:16PM

Irishphotodesk wrote: »

the fact that a delegation from China were coming soon and a protest outside the factories could result in years of negotiations collapsing which would be bad for the company and bad for the workers.

Hence the "need" for an injunction, the matter will be heard later in the week which could result in the injunction continued or the protests allowed.

I doubt the Irish constitution would be ripped up just because some businessmen are looking to buy offal.

This is a democratic state, not a communist one.

Thanks for trying to respond. Hopefully someone will be along soon who knows what they're talking about.

Irishphotodesk · 27-08-2019 06:44PM

riemann wrote: »

I doubt the Irish constitution would be ripped up just because some businessmen are looking to buy offal.

This is a democratic state, not a communist one.

Thanks for trying to respond. Hopefully someone will be along soon who knows what they're talking about.

Why post a thread if you are not willing to accept responses given, the injunction is a preventative measure by two companies , you can take whatever opinion you want but please don't insult my intelligence when I give you an answer to your question.

Why an injunction ? To reduce the risk of the trade deal collapsing, to limit the power of the protesters in ongoing negotiations.

If the delegation arrive and there are protests ... It's likely the deal will collapse, if the protesters are allowed to protest they have a stronger position to get money or a better deal from the companies in order to stop the protests before the Chinese arrive....hence the "need" for an injunction, I assume the above explanation simple enough to understand.

nuac · 27-08-2019 07:48PM

Mod
Riemann, please be polite here

CIARAN_BOYLE · 27-08-2019 08:08PM

I hate journalism these days. There's none of it.

Ive read 4 different news sites on this essentially putting out a word for word identical report which does not convey the facts of the case in a way that makes sense.

Blockading factories and intimidating suppliers is illegal and the op is correct that an injunction is not necessary.

I believe the injunction may be against the protest itself as the risk of crimes which cannot be traced (due to a protestor wall of silence) is high.

Irishphotodesk · 27-08-2019 09:17PM

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

I hate journalism these days. There's none of it.

Ive read 4 different news sites on this essentially putting out a word for word identical report which does not convey the facts of the case in a way that makes sense.

Blockading factories and intimidating suppliers is illegal and the op is correct that an injunction is not necessary.

I believe the injunction may be against the protest itself as the risk of crimes which cannot be traced (due to a protestor wall of silence) is high.

As someone who works in journalism, specifically the courts, the reason why court copy is the same across multiple news outlets is because the publications do not employ as many journalists as they did in the past, court copy is from a dedicated pool of journalists and when the courts are officially closed (they are closed from start of August until start of October) ...there are even less journalists supplying the national media.

Journalists can only report what is said in court or opened to the court (in papers read by the judge), court reports are factual.

The court report distributed to the media can sometimes be adjusted by the various news desks, sometimes a journalist will add their own twist by contacting the relevant parties for a quote or interview someone in the story and add this to bulk out the story ....sometimes they will add previous court copy to the updated story.

So yes, because people are not purchasing newspapers, there are less journalists, less journalists results in less individualism across news titles and more “agency” copy.

riemann · 27-08-2019 10:56PM

Irishphotodesk wrote: »

Why an injunction ? To reduce the risk of the trade deal collapsing, to limit the power of the protesters in ongoing negotiations.

Apologies, it wasn't my intention to hurt your feelings.

Your argument is your personal opinion, without referring to a legal basis.

I was hoping someone might explain the legal reasoning for essentially banning a protest on behalf of commercial interests, which the judge relied on in his judgement.

Peregrinus · 28-08-2019 01:18AM

riemann wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/2019/0827/1071106-beef-prices/

"The owners of up to a dozen meat plants have been granted temporary High Court injunctions restraining groups of protesters from blockading their factories and intimidating staff and suppliers."

Could someone explain why a high court injunction was required in this case?

I'd have thought if someone was acting illegally anywhere, they could be arrested and charged?

Why the need for a high court injunction?

With very limited exceptions, you can only be arrested and charged if you're reasonably suspected of committing a crime.

But, of course, it's perfectly possible to behave in a way that infringes someone else's legal rights, but that is not a crime. You can't be arrested for doing this, but the law does provide other remedies, of which by far the most common is an award of damages.

If you want a remedy of this kind, you don't involve the police or demand that someone be arrested. (Even if they are also committing a crime and you do succeed in having them arrested for it, that doesn't give you your remedy.) You institute court proceedings, seeking a judgment which awards you your remedy.

Damages are not the only remedy the courts can order, and there are kinds of legal injury for which damages might not be an appropriate or adequate remedy. The courts can also issue injunctions - orders to do, or refrain from doing, certain things.

In this instance the meat packers sought an injunction, restraining people from blockading their plants. They sought an interim injunction, meaning an injunction issued to preserve the status quo until the legal issues between the parties can be thrashed out fully in court proceedings. They will have argued that, if they did not get the interim injunction, they would suffer injury of a kind that could not be adequately compensated for through an award of damages.

GM228 · 28-08-2019 06:33AM

riemann wrote: »

Hopefully someone will be along soon who knows what they're talking about.

Someone already did

Irishphotodesk wrote: »

the fact that a delegation from China were coming soon and a protest outside the factories could result in years of negotiations collapsing which would be bad for the company and bad for the workers.

Hence the "need" for an injunction, the matter will be heard later in the week which could result in the injunction continued or the protests allowed.

Irishphotodesk wrote: »

Why post a thread if you are not willing to accept responses given, the injunction is a preventative measure by two companies , you can take whatever opinion you want but please don't insult my intelligence when I give you an answer to your question.

Why an injunction ? To reduce the risk of the trade deal collapsing, to limit the power of the protesters in ongoing negotiations.

If the delegation arrive and there are protests ... It's likely the deal will collapse, if the protesters are allowed to protest they have a stronger position to get money or a better deal from the companies in order to stop the protests before the Chinese arrive....hence the "need" for an injunction, I assume the above explanation simple enough to understand.

This is a constitutional issue, issues such as potential trade deals are irrelevant, the constitutional protection is only subject to public order and morality, that is to say public order must not be breached as per the High Court Brendan Dunne Ltd vs Fitzpatrick [1958] IR 29 case.

Once there is no overt action against other individuals such as preventing their access to premises or more than a minority engaged in threatening activity and a protest is otherwise peaceful it is not possible to successfully gain an injunction.

Such protestors are “prima facia” entitled to a constitutional guarantee of protest as per the Court of Criminal Appeal in the DPP vs Kehoe [1983] IR 136 case.

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

Blockading factories and intimidating suppliers is illegal and the op is correct that an injunction is not necessary.

Well, that depends, there is a difference between protesting outside a factory on the public highway and actually refusing entry to others/intimidation, the latter is unlawful, the former is not in and of itself.

Intimidation is also another area which will not automatically make such a protest unlawful, for example if the minority only are engaged in such behaviour it will not result in an unlawful protest as per the High Court in the Hyland vs Dundalk Racing [2014] IEHC 60 case.

GM228 · 28-08-2019 06:44AM

riemann wrote: »

Apologies, it wasn't my intention to hurt your feelings.

Your argument is your personal opinion, without referring to a legal basis.

I was hoping someone might explain the legal reasoning for essentially banning a protest on behalf of commercial interests, which the judge relied on in his judgement.

Remember you are only reading a news piece which mentions matters raised, there is no suggestion the judge relied on this in the judgement, it was merely mentioned, the injunction was issued based on the actions of those protesting, not for commercial reasons, whilst I'm not a fan of quoting news reports read further down:-

The judge said he was satisfied on the evidence placed before the court in sworn affidavits to restrain the named protesters, or anyone acting in concert with them, from impeding, instructing, hindering or in any way interfering directly or indirectly with access to or egress from all of the two meat companies plants.

It is clear the preliminary injunction was granted based around the allegations of intimidation or blocking access etc.

It is also worth noting that an injunction to prevent such behaviour does not in itself prevent further peaceful protesting.

Irishphotodesk · 28-08-2019 01:24PM

For what it's worth legals have had to come back before the court today (wed) ... The temporary injunction has allegedly been ignored.

GM228 · 28-08-2019 02:49PM

Irishphotodesk wrote: »

For what it's worth legals have had to come back before the court today (wed) ... The temporary injunction has allegedly been ignored.

ABP and Dawn Meats are seeking attachment and committal orders against the protesters, however, the Irish Farmers Association have now begun legal proceedings themselves to quash the court orders.

Donald Trump · 29-08-2019 10:52AM

Are they protesting on private or public property? Or does it make a difference legally? I would have thought that if they were on private property that they could just be told to leave and done for protesting............but at the same time there were all those hippy "occupations" of houses in Dublin there a while back and the guards wouldn't just go in and clear them out

High Court Grants Injunction against protestors

Comments