Claim No. 2014/700

IN THE COUNTY COURT SITTING AT GLADBURY

BETWEEN:

MRS JOCELYN BARRATT

Claimant/Applicant

and

MS AMANDA DWYER

Defendant/Respondent

__________________

CHRONOLOGY

___________________

20th November 2014 - The Claimant came to learn that the Defendant had an affair

with her husband.

22nd November 2014 - The Claimant and the Defendant had their first heated exchange

where the Defendant came to learn that the Claimant was in

fact still alive and that Owen was not a widower.

24th November 2014 - The Claimant encountered a disturbance outside her house,

where she heard loud slogan chanting expressly about her.

Shortly after, the Claimant noticed a note which is exhibit JB/1

1

in the letterbox before leaving for Edinburgh later. A female

with short dark hair and glasses and black hoodie top was

present.

28th November 2014 - The Claimant returned/arrived home alone without her

husband.

29th November 2014 - The Claimant’s neighbour came and told her that

she received some leaflets with disturbing images through the

door indicating the Claimant as an animal murderer in very

vicious terms.

30th November 2014 - The Claimant went shopping and was disturbingly caught off

guard with a person behind her dressing as a rabbit painted in

such a way that the rabbit was covered in cuts and bloods. The

rabbit was carrying a placard that had the Claimant’s name

associated with animal cruelty. The placard had a picture of the

Claimant as well. The female with dark short hair and glasses

and black hoodie top was again present.

1st December 2014 - The Defendant was approached by the police.

13th /14th December 2014 -The Claimant will be taking part in a conference.

2

Claim No. 2014/700

IN THE COUNTY COURT SITTING AT GLADBURY

BETWEEN:

MRS JOCELYN BARRATT

Claimant/Applicant

and

MS AMANDA DWYER

Defendant/Respondent

_____________________________

AMENDED DRAFT ORDER

_____________________________

Upon hearing Counsel for the Claimant and for the Defendant, and reading the witness

statements and exhibits in the case:

IT IS ORDERED THAT the Defendant be forbidden until further order from causing or

permitting any act that tends or intends to harass the Claimant or otherwise to act unlawfully.

In particular by refraining from the following activities:

1. Coming within 100 metres of the Claimant;

2. Approaching within 200 metres of the Claimant’s home at 20 Magnolia Dene, Gladbury;

3. Contacting or attempting to contact the Claimant either directly or indirectly;

3

4. Approaching within 200 metre of the Glenfeather Hotel on the 13th or 14th December

2014;

5. Causing to be distributed any form of leaflet or other printed material naming the

Claimant or bearing her image or in any other way identifying the Claimant;

6. Interfering in any way with the lawful business of the Claimant;

7. Interfering with the reputation of the Claimant in any way.

4

Claim No. 2014/700

IN THE COUNTY COURT SITTING AT GLADBURY

BETWEEN:

MRS JOCELYN BARRATT

Claimant/Applicant

and

MS AMANDA DWYER

Defendant/Respondent

________________________________________________________

SKELETON ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CLAIMANT

________________________________________________________

1. Introduction

1.1. This is an application for an interim injunction pursuant to CPR r.25 and s.37 (1) of the

County Courts Act 1984.

1.2. The parties involved are the Claimant (C), Jocelyn Barratt, and the Defendant (D),

Amanda Dwyer. D was previously in a relationship with C’s husband, Owen, upon

which he chose to cease the relationship with D.

5

1.3. Following that, a person believed to be D has conducted a series of acts in order to upset

C and create an image of C having a peripheral professional involvement in issues to do

with animal testing.

2. Documents

2.1. The documents referred to in support of this application are:

Witness statements and exhibits:

The witness statement of Jocelyn Barratt dated 3/12/14 (Barratt).

The witness statement of Amanda Dwyer dated 5/12/14 (Dwyer).

Note dated 3/12/14 (JB/1).

Statutes: Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA).

Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (PHA).

Authorities: American Cyanamid v. Ethicon [1975] AC 396 (HL).

Cream Holdings Ltd v Banerjee and the Liverpool Post and Echo Ltd

[2004] UKHL 44.

Murray v Big Pictures (UK) Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 446

Others: Amended Draft order.

Chronology.

6

3. TEST

3.1. The principles to be followed in determining whether or not to grant an interim

injunction have been laid down by the authority of American Cyanamid v. Ethicon

[1975] AC 396 (HL) namely:

(a) Is there a serious question to be tried;

(b) The adequacy of damages for C and undertaking in damages for D; and

(c) The balance of convenience.

3.2. Only if the right to freedom of expression is engaged in accordance with Article 10 of

the ECHR, the first limb of the Cyanamid test must read in conjunction with s.12(3) of

the Human Rights Act 1998 which states:

“No such relief is to be granted so as to restrain publication before trial unless the court is

satisfied that the applicant is likely to establish that publication should not be allowed.”

4. Issues

4.1. The issues to be considered in this case are:

(a) Whether the conducts of D are capable of amounting to harassment under the 1997

Act.

(b) Whether the conducts of D caused C alarm and distress.

(c) Whether the motive for D’s conducts were reasonable.

(d) Is the infringement of C’s right to privacy and confidentiality outweighed by D’s

right to freedom of expression?

7

5. Are there serious questions to be tried?

Whether the conducts of D are capable of amounting to harassment under the 1997 Act.

5.1. D has in fact pursue a course of conduct that are capable of amounting to harassment on

at least two occasions under the 1997 Act by:

(a) Deliberately causing a disturbance outside C’s house by explicitly associating her

with animal cruelty on the 24th November 2014 (JB W/S Para 3).

(b) Deliberately distributing leaflets through the door of C’s neighbour indicating that C

is an animal murderer on the 29th November 2014 (JB W/S Para 8).

(c) Deliberately using powerful, disgusting and disturbing figures to explicitly associate

C to animal cruelty in public (JB W/S Para 9).

Whether the conducts of D caused C alarm and distress.

5.2. The conducts of D mentioned, did in fact caused C alarm and distress. C is now forced to

take a week off work with stress and she is also staying at a secret location (JB W/S Para

12).

Whether the motive of D’s conducts were reasonable.

5.3. D’s conduct were in fact unreasonable by:

(a) Loudly chanting disturbing slogans by way of explicitly using C’s name in the early

hours of the morning outside C’s house, which is in a quiet residential road (JB W/S

Para 3).

(b) Distributing leaflets that have very disturbing images on them for the purpose of

referring C to very vicious terms to C’s neighbour (JB W/S Para 8).

8

(c) Using powerful, disgusting and disturbing figures to explicitly refer C to animal

cruelty in public by way of having a placard which read ‘SAVE MY ORGANS

FROM JOCELYNN BARRATT’. The placard also had an enlarged photograph of C

(JB W/S Para 9).

Is the infringement of C’s right to privacy and confidentiality outweighed by D’s right to

freedom of expression?

5.4. A balance must be struck between C’s Article 8 rights and D’s Article 10 rights. Neither

has precedence over the other (Murray v Express, paragraph 24). In addition to the

matters referred to above the following considerations strongly favour the grant of an

injunction:

(a) D’s rights under Article 10 may be restricted to protect the reputation or rights of

others, such as C’s reputation as an established scientist (JB W/S Para 4) and C’s

Article 8 rights.

(b) D’s rights under Article 10 may be restricted for the prevention of disorder or crime,

such as harassment.

5.5. Therefore, it is submitted that, D’s course of conducts does amount to harassment that is

protected by the 1997 Act.

5.6. D cannot rely on her Article 10 rights so long as it is not engaged.

5.7. Following the decision in Cream Holdings Ltd v Banerjee and the Liverpool Post and

Echo Ltd, C has a real prospect of success in trial.

6. Whether D is acting out of malice.

6.1. The nature of D’s conduct as seen in paragraph 5.1 and 5.3 clearly shows that D is acting

out of spiteful revenge after losing out on C’s husband.

9

6.2. C confirms that D is indeed her husband’s ex-mistress, who is now harassing her, by the

following reasons:

(a) The repetition of the exact same phrase ‘cruel bitch’ by D (J/B WS Para 2) (J/B WS

Para 3).

(b) D has short dark hair and was wearing a black hoodie top and a pair of glasses (JB

W/S Para 5).

(c) Distinctive earrings worn by D which was bought by C’s husband in Morocco (JB

W/S Para 10).

(d) Owen confirms that D does have short dark hair and sometimes wears glasses (JB

W/S Para 6).

(e) He also confirms that he had disclosed to D information regarding C’s job (JB W/S

Para 11).

6.3. Given that these abusive incidents occurred since the 24 th November 2014, just two days

after the parties’ heated exchange (JB W/S Para 2), and that the feature of the female

matches the feature of D, the likely conclusion that could be drawn is that D is indeed

C’s husband’s ex-mistress, who is now harassing her.

7. Adequacy of damages for C

7.1. If an injunction is not granted, C’s career could be jeopardized along with the legitimate

business interests of the group that she works with.

7.2. Also, the loss of reputation will be impossible to measure and cannot be quantified by

money.

8. Undertaking in damages for D

8.1. If an injunction is granted, D does not suffer any losses.

8.2. Also, C has £100,000 equity in her house which she is happy to offer as much as the

court considers appropriate by way of an undertaking in damages.

9. Balance of convenience

10

9.1. If an injunction is not granted, C will be in a position where she may continue to suffer

more abusive incidents which will cause her immense stress and loss of reputation. C’s

career may also be jeopardized if the conference, that she is due to take part in, is

sabotaged by D and the activists that are supporting her (JB W/S Para 12). On the other

hand, D suffers no possible damages.

10. Conclusion

10.1. C is not seeking to restrict D’s right to freedom of expression. Instead, C is merely

seeking the court’s protection over this coming weekend, and until any final hearing of

the case (JB W/S Para 13).

11