Held, application granted. (1) The local authority, as legal owner, could use the land and consent or withhold consent to others using it as it thought fit, provided it did so without infringing any statutory duty, preventing members of the public using the public rights of way and subject to not acting in a manner incompatible with a person’s rights under articles 10 and 11 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. As the local authority accepted, the test, where an injunction was sought at the interim stage and not at a full trial, was whether there was a serious issue to be tried. There was a serious issue to be tried to the effect that acts of trespass were being and had been committed by overnight sleeping and by engaging in conduct such as attaching persons to other persons and objects, lying down in front of vehicles and banging objects to make noise. The present case was not about money and it was clear that damages would not be an adequate remedy for either party. It would be inappropriate for the authority to be compelled to tolerate the unwanted presence on its land of overnight sleeping protesters. To do so would give the protesters special and preferential treatment over other ordinary citizens, who were not allowed to camp on the land without special permission for which payment was made. The protesters’ ability to protest was not very seriously impaired by a ban on overnight sleeping accommodation on the land, so that the special privilege of being allowed to do so should be effectively granted to them by the High Court. The land was not a free camp site and the authority was acting reasonably by acting to prevent unrestricted and unregulated overnight camping. The protesters numbers could swell greatly and they could be joined by others, for example, ramblers, hikers, holiday-makers, homeless people and others less interested in protesting than the opportunity for free camping. Enjoyment of the land by others would then be seriously impeded and insanitary conditions would be impossible to avoid. Being a protester did not give rights that others did not have. Invoking articles 10 and 11 of the Convention did not put one in a better legal position than other ordinary members of the public who were not allowed to camp. Accordingly, an injunction to restrain overnight sleeping would be granted (paras 82, 83, 96, 101, 110, 111, 113).

(2) The four specific types of protest, if committed, were disruptive of others’ enjoyment of the land and activities on it. They prevented others from going about their lawful business. The protesters’ Convention rights were not absolute and did not make those acts inviolable. The modest restrictions on the protesters’ rights to protest embodied in a prohibition of the four specific types of protest act were justified and fell within the scope of justified restrictions defined in the Convention. Accordingly, an interim injunction would be granted in those terms (paras 116–119).

Per curiam. The right to life under article 2 of the Convention was not engaged. Any threat to life, for example through water contamination or global warming, was too indirectly linked to the HS2 construction project to be capable of raising an article 2 issue (para 108).