THE prosecution has finished presenting its evidence on the second day of a hearing at the High Court in London to decide if BAA should be granted an injunction to restrict a planned protest at Heathrow Airport known as Climate Camp.
BAA's case rests on the claim that organisers of Climate Camp and the groups involved in it are aiming to cause disruption and distress to staff and travellers at the UK's largest airport.
Mr Timothy Lawson-Cruttenden, prosecuting, said: "A blockade by the protestors could cause thousands of people to miss their flights and that would result in financial loss and cause anxiety."
He also defined the people the injunction would apply to - answering media speculation that it could affect as many as five million people.
The injunction will cover four named defendants: John Stewart, Leo Murray, Joss Garman and Geraldine Nicholson, as well as anyone acting unlawfully in the name of the groups Climate Camp, Plane Stupid, NoTRAG, Hacan and Airport Watch.
BAA is seeking to prevent these people from using the transport infrastructure around Heathrow - especially roads and rail links - and they would not be allowed within 400 yards of the airport.
The requested injuection would also restrict the equipment protestors could bring with them, barring from taking wheelbarrows, hammers, saws and axes which, the prosecution claims, are not normal camping equipment.
The company also wants the protestors to give police 24 hours notice of the site and scope of any protests that will be undertaken.
Mr Lawson-Cruttenden also stated that there are three designated areas BAA would allow protestors to use - each holding up to 100 people - although it is unclear if that will be enough for the numbers expected by Climate Camp.
Before adjourning for lunch today (Thursday) the defence started to put its case forward, with Nicholas Blake QC calling the injunction "the most extraordinarily wide-ranging injunction ever sought from the courts of this land".
He also stated that direct action does not necessarily mean illegal activity, citing the Wikipedia definition.
The case continues.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article