University of the Arts London Students Served With Injunction

Apr 17, 2015

Written By Billy Sexton, Editor, AllAboutLaw.co.uk

You may have read in the media recently that 15 students from the University of the Arts London (UAL) have been served with an injunction that bans them protesting through occupation on campus indefinitely. If you haven’t read this, then let us inform you that 15 students from UAL have been served with an injunction that bans them protest- you got the message? Ah, right. Okay.

So what happened exactly? The students’ union of UAL was protesting against the university cutting 580 foundation places on arts and design courses for new students, by occupying a room in Central Saint Martins before meeting with university representatives on March 26 to voice their concerns formally. The university proposed a joint review of the decision if the students ended their sit in by 6pm on April 2, but this did not occur and the offer of the joint review was withdrawn. UAL then hired solicitor firm BLM to start legal proceedings against those who were protesting, “in respect of trespass on University premises.” As a result, 15 of the protesters were summoned before a judge at the Royal Courts of Justice earlier this week and were served with injunctions.

So what were the legal grounds for the court providing an injunction? Trespass amounts to a tort in English law – this is a civil wrongdoing, if you happened to forget your initial tort law lectures – and is defined by Elliott and Quinn as “unjustifiable interference with land which is in the immediate and exclusive possession of another”.

Obviously, Central Saint Martins is the land in the possession of another person or organisation other than the 15 students who were served with an injunction. What is slightly more ambiguous though is whether or not a sit-in protest amounted to “unjustifiable interference”. Interference is fairly straightforward also – it covers direct and physical entry to land. Given that the protestors occupied a reception area of work, suggested by the presence of leaflets, phones and computer monitors in this photo and confirmed in the Guardian, UAL deem this interference as unjustifiable.

Does this not amount to UAL prohibiting the freedom of expression of students, which is protected under the Human Rights Act 1998? Additionally, under the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, universities have “to ensure that freedom of speech within the law is secured for members, students and employees of the establishment and for visiting speakers.” So, what was UAL’s justification for taking legal action over the sit-in?

UAL point out that in their Freedom of Speech Code of Practice, “Any individual or body intending to organise a meeting is required to inform the University Secretary and Registrar before any arrangements are made” and are also concerned that the protest would have a serious impact on summer shows. On top of this, UAL stated they “have serious concerns about the safety of those occupying the space, due to the disregard of fire regulations including sleeping close to open heaters, preventing safe access to fire exit routes from the occupied and the gallery, using D-locks and rope to secure the doors.” Moreover, “a quarter of all administrative staff at Central Saint Martins do not have access to their desks and vital materials, and reception staff have had to relocate to a space which is unsuitable for their duties. It is still not possible to pick up the numerous incoming calls from existing students, potential students and others attempting to make contact with the college.”

There we have it – if you were wondering why a seemingly peaceful protest has been shut down, that’s why!

Blog