Trespass Injunction

[acton28.blog]

I pinged the above link as a header in mancity.com - just searched it on here, nowt seems to be showing. Does anyone have info?

"Following an incident on Sunday 27th August where individuals gained unauthorised access to the Etihad Stadium, an injunction has been attained to prevent trespass.

In relation to City Football Group’s properties in England (including the Etihad Stadium, City Football Academy and the Group’s offices in London) the six individuals named in the High Court Order, those individuals who trespassed but were unidentified, as well as any other individuals who gain unauthorised access in the future, will be subject to the injunction.

The six individuals named will also be forbidden from entering CFG’s properties worldwide without prior permission.

City Football Group take matters regarding safety and security extremely seriously and will continue to ensure that robust measures are in place to protect our properties and employees, as well as deter other individuals and groups from engaging in dangerous activities of this nature.

Full details of the High Court Order, and a list of all the properties to which it applies worldwide, can be found in the supporting documentation set out below."

Supporting Documentation

• High Court Order - CFG vs Davies and Ors (25 September 2017) (pdf)
• Claim Form 19 09 17 (pdf)
• Application Notice 19 09 17 (pdf)
• First JDR and GS Witness Statements (Exhibits JDR1 and GS1) (pdf)
• JDR Second Witness Statement - 22 Sept 2017 (pdf)

 

[ganganvince]

I pinged the above link as a header in mancity.com - just searched it on here, nowt seems to be showing. Does anyone have info?

"Following an incident on Sunday 27th August where individuals gained unauthorised access to the Etihad Stadium, an injunction has been attained to prevent trespass.

In relation to City Football Group’s properties in England (including the Etihad Stadium, City Football Academy and the Group’s offices in London) the six individuals named in the High Court Order, those individuals who trespassed but were unidentified, as well as any other individuals who gain unauthorised access in the future, will be subject to the injunction.

The six individuals named will also be forbidden from entering CFG’s properties worldwide without prior permission.

City Football Group take matters regarding safety and security extremely seriously and will continue to ensure that robust measures are in place to protect our properties and employees, as well as deter other individuals and groups from engaging in dangerous activities of this nature.

Full details of the High Court Order, and a list of all the properties to which it applies worldwide, can be found in the supporting documentation set out below."

Supporting Documentation

• High Court Order - CFG vs Davies and Ors (25 September 2017) (pdf)
• Claim Form 19 09 17 (pdf)
• Application Notice 19 09 17 (pdf)
• First JDR and GS Witness Statements (Exhibits JDR1 and GS1) (pdf)
• JDR Second Witness Statement - 22 Sept 2017 (pdf)

Would imagine it would be the free climbers

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

In relation to City Football Group’s properties in England (including the Etihad Stadium, City Football Academy and the Group’s offices in London) the six individuals named in the High Court Order, those individuals who trespassed but were unidentified, as well as any other individuals who gain unauthorised access in the future, will be subject to the injunction.

I'm no expert, but I'm not sure how that bit is remotely enforceable, or even lawful. (I think) it's essentially saying that someone who jibs in, without knowing the existience of the injunction, is in contempt of court. That simply cannot be right. How can you be in contempt of a Court Order that you are not aware of?

 

[TCIB]

I'm no expert, but I'm not sure how that bit is remotely enforceable, or even lawful. (I think) it's essentially saying that someone who jibs in, without knowing the existience of the injunction, is in contempt of court. That simply cannot be right. How can you be in contempt of a Court Order that you are not aware of?

They call this "ex parte" i think right? or at least similar.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

They call this "ex parte" i think right? or at least similar.

Ex parte is where the other parties to an Order aren't in court for a particular hearing (usually the first one), but can be at a later date, but the other party (at 9 on the Order) in this instance is the entire population of the world! As I said, I'm no expert, but I fail to see how someone tressapssing at The Etihad, who hasn't been served with the Order (and by implication isn't aware of it) can be in contempt of court.

Not saying I'm absolutely right, I could very well be wrong, but it doesn't add up to me.

 

[denislawsbackheel]

It is correct.
Remember the super injunctions that you were forbidden from knowing about but could be prosecuted for contravening.
I think Bryan Riggs had one for his serial philandering.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

It is correct.
Remember the super injunctions that you were forbidden from knowing about but could be prosecuted for contravening.
I think Bryan Riggs had one for his serial philandering.

Good point, although I felt the same about that as well. Enforcing it would be a nightmare imo. I just don't see how you can be in contempt of something you aren't aware of. It's also right to say that the law around contempt is pretty esoteric. It's the only offence you don't need leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. Also there's a convention that if you purge your contempt (i.e. apologise) then the court should impose little or no sanction - although that is more for instances where a defendant has told the judge to 'fuck off' etc...

 

[squirtyflower]

Good point, although I felt the same about that as well. Enforcing it would be a nightmare imo. I just don't see how you can be in contempt of something you aren't aware of. It's also right to say that the law around contempt is pretty esoteric. It's the only offence you don't need leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. Also there's a convention that if you purge your contempt (i.e. apologise) then the court should impose little or no sanction - although that is more for instances where a defendant has told the judge to 'fuck off' etc...

If you stop telling him to fuck off you wouldn't be apologising as much

 

[Vic]

The legal witness statement says they're not seeking a blanket injunction and most people coming on the premises will have express or implied consent to be there.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

The legal witness statement says they're not seeking a blanket injunction and most people coming on the premises will have express or implied consent to be there.

I'm more interested in the Order than any statement. Of course most people will have (at the very least) that implied consent, but what about people (for example) who jib in? They are clearly trespassing. Are they subject to this Order and therefore in contempt of court when they jib in?