The University of Birmingham v Persons Unknown & Anor

The Claimant is a University providing tertiary education to students.

The 1^st Defendant is a group of people occupying or present upon two areas of grassed land owned by the University. The 1st is Green Heart (GH) and the second is Chancellor’s Court (CC), both on the Edgbaston campus in Birmingham. The two together will be called the “Protest Camps”. The University has three campuses: Edgbaston, Selly Oak and Exchange Building. The occupation of GH started on 9.5.2024 when the first protest camp was established. The second protest camp was set up on CC on 27.5.21024.

The 2^nd Defendant stepped forwards at the hearing and handed in a letter on behalf of the students at the Protest Camps, so she became a named Defendant. She is not a lawyer and said very little at the hearing.

For the hearing I was provided with: (1) a bundle of authorities; (2) a hearing bundle; (3) the Claimant’s skeleton argument; (4) a last minute witness statement with video clips produced on the day of the hearing; (5) a letter from Hodge Jones and Allen.

On the 9th of May 2024 various students and perhaps staff set up a protest camp with some tents on GH. They were protesting to the University and presented a list of six demands to the University in relation to the killings and suffering in Gaza, Palestine. The University issued a claim form 4 weeks later, on the 10th of June 2024 and possession was sought against trespassers who were described as unknown persons. All three campuses were to be covered by the draft order. The application was made under CPR part 55, a section which focuses on possession claims against trespassers. In the Particulars of Claim the University pleaded that they believed the protesters were largely students who had “generally” been concealing their faces and that as a result the University did not know the identity of the protesters. The pleading sets out that the Protesters demanded the following:

The University issued notices to quit the GH protest camp the next day: on the 10th of May and subsequently on the 11th, 12th and 15th of May 2024. No application was made for any injunction. There was no pleading that any student had been identified during the passage of the four weeks between the start of the occupation and the issuing of the claim form. There was no pleading that any student had been disciplined for these protest activities.

Under CPR r.55.5(2) service on alleged trespassers has to be completed at least 2 days before the hearing. Having seen the evidence of service from Mr Hines, I am satisfied that the Protest Camps were served by the delivery of many paper copies of the proceedings and the evidence on 11.6.2022.

The Claimant asked for the hearing to be listed urgently and the Court complied with this request. The hearing took place on the 14th of June 2024. At the hearing approximately 20 students attended together with some members of the public. The second Defendant, named above, stepped forwards on behalf of the protesters and handed up a letter from a solicitors firm called Hodge, Jones and Alan, which asked for an adjournment so that the students and staff who were protesting could obtain legal advice and representation to be able to defend the possession proceedings. The Claimant asserted that there were no issues in this action and that the University was entitled to possession as the owners of the land. In her skeleton argument Miss Holland KC submitted, at paragraph 8, that there were no arguable defences to the claim. She asserted that the rights guaranteed by Section 1 (2) of the Human Rights Act [HRA] and Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights [ECHR] did not assist trespassers on private property. Furthermore, she asserted the statutory duty on the University in section 43 (1) of the Education Act 1986 did not require the University to allow students to occupy any part of the University's land because the students could exercise their freedom of speech effectively in many other ways. I have considered the submissions made by the Claimant and the case law and set out what I consider to be the issues below. Instead of giving an extemporary judgment I reserved judgment. I now set out my reasons for granting limited possession orders relating to the Edgbaston campus only and relating to non-students only, save for the CC area from which I ordered possession against all persons unknown. I also give my reasons for adjourning the rest of the application to 25^th June 2024. I have provided this judgment quickly, without the usual draft to the parties for corrections, so I beg forgiveness for any typing errors. The Claimant indicated a firm desire to appeal my order and that is another reason why I have provided this judgment quickly.

At this early stage, without the benefit of any legal argument from the students or staff, pursuant to the Court’s duty when considering claims against persons unknown, in my judgment the following issues arise or may arise from the facts put before me:

The 2^nd Defendant applied for an adjournment for legal advice for herself and the 1^st Defendant. I granted it in relation to all students on the HG area.

The Claimant applied for permission to put into evidence a second witness statement from Doctor Blanco dated 14.6.2024, which had not been served on the Defendants and which contained video clips taken from the internet of three events to which I will refer below.

At the hearing I decided to consider the adjournment after I had heard submissions. I decided to read and see the unserved further evidence before deciding whether it would be fair to allow the Claimant rely upon it against the Defendants.

I read evidence from the following witnesses. None were called.

I also read the bundle of documents produced by the witnesses by way of exhibits which included: the registers of title of the campus land; screenshots of social media issued by the protesters; an information sheet about the student contracts; the terms of Post Graduate and Direct Entry offers; S.s 4 & 9 of the University Regulations; the Code of Practice on Freedom of Speech; the Protesters’ letter explaining their protest and setting out their demands (undated but probably delivered in early May 2024); the Vice Chancellor’s reply message to students dated 17.5.2024; correspondence between the protesters and the University; photos of the Protester Camps; the notices to quit; the security logs.

There are not many findings of fact which I can make on the balance of probability at this stage because the Defendants have only had 2 days notice of the proceedings. I am going to set out a summary of the evidence below but what I set out may change once the Defendants have obtained legal representation and put in evidence at the adjourned hearing.

Doctor Blanco is the director of legal services at the University. In her witness statement she gives evidence that the Protest Camps were established at the Edgbaston campus. She asserts that the occupiers are largely students. Their contracts with the University incorporated the University Regulations and University Code. She asserted that the students had the right to access University land under Regulation 4. She relied upon Regulation 4.1.1 which provides students and staff with the right to access all land and buildings “for any legitimate purpose connected with the work, business and social activities of the University”. She relied on Regulation 9 which required staff and students to observe the Codes of Practice, Policies and Guidance issued by the University. She set out section 6.1 of the Code of Practice on Freedom of Speech under which the University, in writing, accepted responsibility to promote free speech including all demonstrations, protests and other events organised by a member of staff or student of the University. She relied on section 6.2 which required organisers of such events to follow the procedures set out in Appendix B which included requesting permission for protests and demonstrations (14 days in advance) and set out that the University should not unreasonably refuse consent for lawful freedom of speech.

In her chronology of events Doctor Blanco recorded a demonstration by the Friends of Palestine Society on the 7th of February 2024 at the University. Her evidence omitted any mention of whether permission was requested or granted for that demonstration. On the 22nd of April 2024 a protester group sent a letter to the Vice Chancellor setting out the demands and their rationale. The demands are summarised in the pleading which I have set out above. The letter also informed the University of a demonstration planned on the 1st of May 2024. The witness statement does not mention whether that request was granted by the University, nor whether the demonstration event took place. On the 9th of May 2024 the GH camp was established and social media postings set out the protesters’ intention to occupy the area to protest against Israel's actions in Gaza. Doctor Blanco set out the University's response to the protest camp. On the 17th of May 2024 the Vice Chancellor, Mr Tickle, posted a message to all students which included the following:

The assertion in the middle of this message that the University Vice Chancellor was “unable to meet” the protesters seems to me to be factually incorrect. I interpret those words as him being unwilling to meet the protesters to discuss the terms of their demands. No evidence was put forwards that he was in fact unable physically or mentally to meet with any of the protestors to discuss their demands. On the information provided in the Vice Chancellor’s message the first and third demands of the Protest Camps had probably been partly satisfied already. The 6^th demand is undermined by the University seeking possession.

Doctor Blanco then went on to complain that the protesters refused to engage further with University staff members and cancelled meetings, but it is apparent from the social media attached to Doctor Blanco's witness statement that the University were requiring a meeting solely for abolishing the camp and the protesters sought to discuss their concerns and “non-negotiable” demands. Hence the obvious impasse was reached. Doctor Blanco asserted that the encampment was disrupting the University and its students’ activities. However, she did not set out in her witness statement any educational activity that had been disrupted up to the date of her witness statement. She asserted no allegations of violence. She included no allegation of breach of the peace or verbal abuse of staff or students, in particular there was no allegation of verbal abuse to Jewish students which I would have taken very seriously. At paragraph 39 Doctor Blanco asserted that senior staff members of the University had consistently offered to engage and meet with the protesters and asserted that the Vice Chancellor was not the highest authority in the University, that was vested in the University Council. However, this assertion needs to be seen in the context of the Vice Chancellor refusing to meet the students to discuss their demands until they had taken down their Protest Camps.

Doctor Blanco gave evidence that the students had threatened to “disrupt the routine of the University” in one social media post. She set out that the students had not sought the consent required in Appendix B to the Code on Freedom of Speech. She pointed out that the protesters invited people to meetings and that some of the groups involved in the protest were named “Revolutionary Communists”. Another group was called “Crochet for Action”. She set out that she was concerned that the camp had extended into Chancellors Court and that the camps would interfere with the University's summer programme which had already started because it was scheduled to take place between the 3rd and the 21st of June 2024. She informed the Court that the summer programme included academic elements, talks, challenges and social events on areas including CC and GH. She was also concerned that the Graduation Ball which was to take place on the 13th of June 2024 would be affected (in the event, in her later witness statement dated 14.6.2024, there was no mention of it being disrupted). She was concerned that open days which are due to take place on the 21st and 22nd of June 2024 could be disrupted. Doctor Blanco pointed out that graduation will occur on the 9th and 19th of July 2024 at the Great Hall on the edge of Chancellors Court. She asserted that staff in the University library were concerned for their safety. She asserted there was a “substantial risk of public disturbance and serious harm to persons or property”. She stated that the circumstances of the case were “exceptional”. Taking judicial notice of the protest camps at many UK and USA universities I am unpersuaded that this protest is exceptional. She also asserted that the University would suffer financial and reputational loss but did not specify what that would be.

In his witness statement, Mark Lawrence, the head of safety and security at the University, stated that he believed there was a strong likelihood that if these students were removed from GH and CC they would relocate elsewhere on any of the three campuses. He did not rely on any evidence of any threat by the Defendants to make this assertion. He gave evidence of various events including a counter protest on the 9th of May 2024 by Israel supporters. He did not give any evidence of any vandalism, breach of the peace or crimes committed during the protest/counter protest at GH. Nor did he give evidence that consent was obtained for that counter protest. He stated that a noisy demonstration disrupted a University conference on epilepsy on the 11th of May 2024. On the 21st of May 2024 a group of protesters went to the Vice Chancellor’s office to deliver their demands in writing. He gave evidence of the extension of the GH camp into the area of CC on the 27th of May 2024 and about banners being raised and then taken down. He stated that he personally found a group of 20 or 30 students intimidating when he sought to persuade them to take down a banner on the 4th of June 2024 and so he withdrew. He gave evidence that additional security had been hired by the University costing £1,000 per day to cover meetings and the Protester Camps. He also gave evidence that on the 27th of May 2024 the protesters called on the Vice Chancellor to meet and discuss their concerns with them. At that time they called themselves a “student/staff coalition of 1000 students and 200 faculty members”. He exhibited his security records. Those records showed that on the 4th of June 2024 the protesters entered the Poynting Physics building. Otherwise, the records mostly showed regular prayer meetings and peaceful, welcoming protests.

John Elsmore gave evidence, as the director of student affairs, that the 5 organisations involved in the protests were: 1. BHM Liberated Zone; 2. UOB Friends of Palestine; 3. Midlands Pal Act; 4. UOB Communists; 5. Brum Action Palestine. He asserted that “we have been unable to identify any individual”. This assertion is perhaps remarkable. The students had been on the campus for four weeks by the time Mr Elsmore swore his witness statement. The social media photographs exhibited to Doctor Blanco's witness statement show quite a few students with no masks on. These are presumably students who are studying at Birmingham University. I do not understand why the University has been unable to identify any student involved in the Protest Camps. At Court there were approximately 20 students, mixed with some members of the public, none of whom were wearing masks. Without some evidence of the efforts made by the University to identify the protesters by name I find this evidence less than convincing at this stage. Mr Elsmore asserted that on the 22nd of May 2024 masked students entered University buildings and in a hall outside a meeting room of the investment committee shouted, chanted loudly and banged on doors. He gave evidence that many staff were visibly shaken and that University security and police liaison intervened. He gave no evidence that any police charges were brought against any of these students for any criminal offences. He went on to say that Jewish staff and students say that the camp has created an “uncomfortable and hostile environment”. However, he did not produce any emails or communications from any student or member of staff. He asserted that some of the protestors had shouted at staff and blocked staff movement but he only made general assertions of those matters and did not descend into specifics of which date, which member of staff or how any blocking movement occurred or the content of any shouting. More worryingly, Mr Elsmore gave evidence that on the 5th of June 2024 several buildings were vandalised when red paint was sprayed on them. These included the Aston Webb building. I asked during the hearing whether the paint was water washable and was informed by counsel that it was not and, although efforts have been made to remove the red paint, they have not fully succeeded. I take that sort of activity very seriously because it is a crime. Mr Elsmore also asserted that a sculpture had been damaged and that responsibility had been claimed for that by “Midlands Pal”. Mr Elsmore explained that the summer programme of the University from the 3rd to the 21st of June was being disrupted and it had to be re-planned and relocated at an additional cost of £22,000 for a week of Heras fencing, in particular.

In Doctor Blanco’s unserved second witness statement she referred to links to protesters’ social media videos which showed: (1) the paint spraying vandalism at the classic building next to CC, (2) the delivery of the demand letter to the Vice Chancellor, and (3) the intimidation of the investment committee by loud students. I watched the videos in Court with the students and counsel.

I have not been provided with the following: I have no copy of the student contract; I do not have full copies of the Rules of the University or the Regulations or the Statutes; I do not have copies of any Code of Practice other than the excerpts listed above. I will set out the relevant excerpts provided to me below.

“Information on the student contract”:

The Regulations S.4:

The Code of Practice on Freedom of Speech states as follows:

The HG protest looked like this, on the University’s evidence:

The CC protest looked like this:

The procedure for possession actions against trespassers is set out in CPR Part 55. A trespasser is defined in rule 55.1(b) as a person who entered or remained on land without consent. Such applications for possession are to be issued in the County Court but they may be issued in the High Court if a certificate setting out specified reasons is provided. Doctor Blanco provided the certificate in this case. The specified reasons are set out in PD55A at paragraph 1.3, and these include: complicated disputes of fact; points of general important; or evidence that there is a substantial risk of public disturbance or serious harm to persons or property which properly require determination. Paragraph 2.1 of the Practice Direction requires that the Particulars of Claim identify the land, the grounds for possession and give details of every person who, to the best of the Claimants knowledge, is in possession. There are other provisions about shortening of time limits, service on trespassers by putting stakes in the ground or attaching to front doors and dispensing with the need for responses from trespassers. By rule 55.8 the Court may order possession in a summary fashion or give directions and adjourn the hearing where the defendants genuinely dispute the claim on grounds which appear substantial. In which circumstances the Court will allocate the claim to a track and direct evidence to be given which may be in writing.

The Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) enshrines the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into UK Law. Section 6 imposes duties on public function bodies thus:

The Education Act 1986 provides:

The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 provides thus:

I take away from these statutes that the University was under duties to protect and uphold the students’ rights to freedom of speech and assembly and to take reasonably practicable steps to ensure that University premises were not denied to the students for those purposes. As for the University’s Code, it had to facilitate the discharge of those duties, not frustrate them.

The University relied on the following cases:

I do not need to summarise McPhail, save to say that this Court has no power to suspend a possession order against trespassers if one is required in law.

In Appleby the European Court of Human Rights [ECHR] was considering an application relating to private land by an environmental group protesting against plan to build on the only public playing field in the area. The protesters set up stands in a private shopping mall. They were prevented from doing so and applied under Article 10 and 11 of the ECHR asserting that the refusal breached those articles. The ECHR rejected the application holding that there was no violation of those rights and ruled thus:

As for Djemal, students occupied buildings on University premises which were used as offices. When a possession order was made they went to other premises. The University sought possession of all of the campuses and the students left just before the hearing but threatened to re occupy after the hearing. Walton J. gave possession just of the part of the premises which the students had been occupying. On appeal the Court of Appeal granted possession of all of the campus. The ratio of the case was that the extent of the possession order depends on the evidence and the circumstances. The threat of reoccupation justified the order in relation to the whole of the land. The relevant part of the judgement of Buckley LJ is at P 1304 letters E to F:

In Meier travellers camped in woodlands owned by the Secretary of State who applied for possession of many sites, not just the one occupied by the travellers. The judge ordered possession of the occupied site but not the other sites. On appeal the ratio of the decision was that an order possession of land which was not occupied was not justified on the facts. An injunction could cover that. Lord Roger ruled as follows:

In SOAS students took occupation of a floor in a University building, protesting about the Government’s spending plans. The occupied floor was a conference centre. A conference had to be cancelled. University business was disrupted. Prospective bookings would have to be cancelled if the occupation continued, wasting £11,000 in fees. The lease under which SOAS occupied had clauses prohibiting activities causing nuisance. The without notice application for possession was put back for notice to be served. An interim injunction was granted. At the adjourned hearing, the next day, the Defendants were represented. The University refused to negotiate with the protesters but would negotiate with the student union. Henderson J. granted possession of the whole campus not just the occupied part of the building and ruled as follows:

Henderson J. then considered the potential defences raised by the protesters and cited the ruling in para. 47 of Appleby thus:

I note and take into account that the protest in SOAS was against the Government not the University, so protests outside Parliament or to MPs or Ministers would have been more direct and would have addressed the objective of the protest more effectively than disrupting University business. The students therefore had other effective means of protest.

Five years later, in UoB the University made an application to extend the validity of a writ of possession made the year before in relation to the campus. The year before a pattern of disruptive occupational protests of University buildings across the whole campus arose which interfered with University educational business. The protests were against Government cuts in fees. The Court made a possession order the previous year but the protests had continued at regular intervals and disbanded before bailiffs arrived. HHJ Purle QC granted the extension but summarised the practical issues with campus wide possession orders thus:

I find little assistance in Ineos however, in Cuciurean, Lord Burnett of Maldon CJ dealt with protests on private land against the Government’s HS2 project in the context of the rights in Arts. 10 and 11 of the ECHR thus:

CPR 55. I have touched on identification above. I am not satisfied on the evidence before me that the University has made reasonable efforts or provided any evidence of any efforts to identify the students who are in the protest camps. The CPR require details of every person who is, to the best of the Claimants, knowledge in possession. This does not mean the worst of the Claimant’s knowledge. The University have only made general assertions that they have not been able to identify any individual. The University has not given any evidence that they have disciplined any students for being on GH and CC in the protest camps for the four weeks before the claim was issued. Maybe it does not consider the Protest Camps to be a disciplinary matter. So, I am concerned that the claim for possession against persons unknown is really a claim for possession against persons who are known or should be known but the Claimant has not sufficiently or adequately tried to identify them. This may also give rise to the difficulty in enforcement. Any possession order against persons unknown would arguably fail to bite on any current student who should or would be “known” to the University. Therefore, it is arguable that all students would have to do would be to show their student cards to defeat then enforcement of a possession order against persons unknown.

In relation to the GH camp I am not satisfied that the certificate provided by Doctor Blanco contains any sufficient evidence that there is a substantial risk of public disturbance or serious harm to persons or property which properly require determination by the High Court. By the time that she signed her witness statement and the Certificate these students had been on GH for four weeks. There had been a counter protest in support of Israel with no evidence of any public disturbance. There is not evidence of any damage to property at GH or injury to persons at GH let alone serious harm at GH.

In relation to CC and the vandalism there, the intimidation of the security officer there and the intimidation of the investment committee members who, as I understand matters, met near there, I do consider that these facts get closer to satisfying the criteria in the Practice Direction of a substantial risk of public disturbance or serious harm to property. Whether spraying indelible paint on classic buildings is serious harm or just harm is at least arguable. Intimidating the security staff or investment committee members is wholly improper, so I agreed to let the claim remain in the High Court on that evidence.

HRA and the ECHR: In my judgment, in carrying out tertiary education with state loans for UK students the University is arguably carrying out acts of a public nature. In any event it is at the least arguable that the HRA and the ECHR binds the University as a public authority. Many universities are registered with the OfS. The extracts of the Rules and Regulations put before me make no reference to the students’ right to freedom of assembly. If this has been omitted from the contract, Rules and Codes then the University is overlooking a key ECHR right which is arguably operative in this claim as a potential defence. These protesters are assembling. However, the Rules do enshrine students’ rights to protest and require the University to support those. What the students have done is assemble on the grass at GH and CC to raise the profile of their protest against the University. It is aimed at the University, not Government. So, when considering the balance inherent in the fettering of freedom of assembly and speech by issuing notices to quit, the person whom the protesters are trying to persuade is highly relevant. In this case that is the University. When considering whether the protesters have other “effective” methods of protest, different factors apply in this case to those in SOAS and Djemal. Arguably, marching in Birmingham High Street would be wholly ineffective to persuade the University, whereas concentrating on the University land and siting in protest near the Vice Chancellor is likely to be more effective use of the right to freedom of assembly and speech. In addition, when considering the balance inherent in HRA defences, the Court will take into account the nature of the land occupied and indeed whether it is actually exclusively occupied or just jointly used. In the current case the student protesters are not excluding anyone from GH or CC. On the contrary, they are welcoming staff and others to GH and CC. The larger tents are open, prayer meetings are being held and discussions taking place. People are wandering about in the land. The only exclusive occupation is under the small sleeping tents scattered about. Another factor in the balance under the HRA is the level of the effect on the University of the Protest Camps. There is a quantum difference between occupying a lecture hall, administrative building or conference centre (SOAS or Djemal) on the one hand and scattered camping on patches of grass on the other. The former directly interferes with lectures and teaching or administration. The latter is a noisy nuisance but does not prevent educational business. The University asserts that the Protester Camps on CC and GH are interfering with the summer programme held between 3^rd and 21^st June, but if that was a real concern the University could have applied long before it started. Instead, the University chose to apply mid-way through the summer programme. As for the asserted losses, the figure of £22,000 for Heras fencing is a very substantial cost which will weigh heavy in the balance, but it is currently put forwards without stating what the “but for” costs would have been. Until the University prove that these costs were caused by the protest alone, they remain potentially relevant figures instead of losses proven to have been caused by the protests. I take into account that a marquee for graduation is usually put on GH but that can probably be re-sited. These matters are all to be weighed in the balance required under the HRA. I consider that there is an arguable defence here for the students for peaceful protest on GH.

The Education Acts required the University to take reasonably practicable steps to ensure that the protesting students were not excluded from University premises on the grounds of their opinions. I have not been provided with any evidence that just letting the students stay on GH is not reasonably practicable. All reasonable practicability tests involve an evidence based assessment of options and costs, the risks and benefits, the relative rights and then a balancing judgment. In this claim the University has only stressed what it sees as the downsides of the GH and the CC camps. There is no analysis of how the University can take steps to ensure the protesters are not excluded or how they can be supported. There is, in my judgment, a substantial difference between student protesters occupying lecture halls, buildings or administration offices and hence preventing or interfering with the business of education, and the protesters in this claim, who are using two patches of grass without excluding anyone else. The protesters are not stopping lectures. They are not stopping the administration of the University, save when the investment committee intimidation occurred and I shall return to that below. So arguably, in my judgment, at this stage the students have a defence based on the University’s failure to comply with their duties under the Education Acts to “take steps” to protect their right to protest on University land.

Licence to enter and use. The University contract with the students requires the students to attend the campus and use it. The purposes for the use are wide. The University Rules enshrine the right to freedom of speech. They should enshrine the right to freedom of assembly but no such Rule has been put in evidence yet. So, when the protesters walked onto the GH and CC land, arguably they had licence to do so. They did not enter as trespassers. This leaves the assertion that remaining on the land is a trespass and that depends on whether the University was permitted, under its student contracts, Rules and Regulations, read in accordance with its statutory duties properly applied, to serve the notices to quit. The day the camp was established was 9.5.2024. The notice to quit was first served on the camp on 10.5.2024. The University may (or may not) have carried out a really rushed HRA and Education Acts analysis, balancing the various factors, in less than 24 hours, but no evidence of any such balancing exercise or of any note of the considerations taken into account was produced in the evidence before this Court. If the University did not carry out that balancing exercise, a defence of failure to comply with the Education Acts may be fortified. In my judgment, the Defendants have an arguable case that they have licence to remain on GH and are not trespassers. I shall deal with CC below.

CC. In my judgment different factors apply to the camp at CC. Once a protest turns into a base camp for criminal activity I have little doubt that the express or implied licence to use ceases to apply, the HRA provides no protection to criminals and those who encourage or cover up criminal activity and the Education Acts no longer assist the protesters who assist or are criminals. Red paint was thrown onto a classic building facing the CC camp and this was recorded on video. I do grant permission for the videos showing that and the other key intimidation events in Doctor Blanco’s unserved witness statement, to be put in evidence because they come from the Defendants and they evidence these crimes or potential crimes. The intimidation of the investment committee was close to threatening words and behaviour, although no police charges have yet been laid and no disciplinary proceedings started. I infer that those actions were carried out, and/or encouraged by the occupiers of the CC camp because the red paint vandalism was on buildings facing the CC camp. No protester reported the culprits to the University. Instead it was posted on social media. The intimidation of one security guard also occurred at CC. No protester has admitted to that behaviour and the protesters at the camp have not reported who the intimidators were. For those reasons I do not consider that the occupants of the camp at CC have any arguable defences and, at the hearing, I granted possession of that camp against persons unknown whether students or non-students.

Non students. At the hearing I granted possession of the whole campus at Edgbaston against all persons unknown who are non-students and are not staff of the University. Those persons unknown are trespassers and have no arguable defences.

Geographical scope. I do not need to decide the scope of the final possession orders in this judgment. The two orders I granted related to the whole of one campus for non-students and to CC for students and staff. I do not consider, on the evidence before me, at this early stage that there is justification for a possession order relating to the other two campuses on which no protests have taken place and over which no threat has been made for the protesters to relocate.

The Claimants have drawn up the possession orders, the adjournment order and the directions for the wider applications to be heard later and the order was issued on 17.6.2024.

For the reasons set out above I consider that the wider possession applications against students and staff should be heard at an adjourned hearing on 25.6.2024. I have not granted possession of the GH camp against any students. That area is the main issue. Possession is also sought for the other two campuses and that is the second issue.

This claim is allocated to the multi-track.

I urge the parties to negotiate or enter mediation before the hearing. If they do not I shall take that into account.