Anti-fur protest halted under harassment law
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Animal rights protesters have been barred from demonstrating outside a London fur shop under anti-harassment legislation.
Animal rights protesters have been barred from demonstrating outside a London fur shop under anti-harassment legislation.
A High Court judge ordered the ban against four campaigners and a pressure group, London Animal Action, in respone to three years of protests outside the Belgravia store of Philip Hockley Limited.
The injunction was granted amid claims that customers and staff were regularly abused and threatened by demonstrators, who allegedly made menacing phone calls, sent letters and attacked the store.
An application from the furrier named Claire Persey, Paul Gravet, Gerrard O'Sullivan and Nigel Cooke as being responsible for the protests. The campaigners are now barred from the streets surrounding the shop and the homes of directors Frank Silverton and Frank and Alison Zilberkweit in Hampstead, north London.
Judge Bentley QC, who made the order under the 1997 Protection from Harassment Act, said: "I am of no doubt that the course of conduct in which the protesters have engaged constituted harassment."
The protesters had argued that the ban would infringe their human right to free speech. The judge ruled the right was "not absolute". The group has vowed to continue its protest away from the fur shop.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments