TWO universities in England have secured High Court orders for the possession of campus land that has been the site of weeks-long pro-Palestinian protest encampments.
The Universities of Nottingham and Birmingham took separate legal action against “persons unknown” and two named activists as part of bids to the end occupation of areas occupied by tents since early May.
In two written rulings on Tuesday, a judge granted summary possession orders – a legal step to decide the cases in the universities’ favour without a full trial.
READ MORE: Israeli air strike kills 29 people at Gaza camp for displaced Palestinians
Justice Johnson concluded that protesters had “no real prospect” of showing that the universities had breached their duties or that an order would be incompatible with their human rights.
The orders cover the University of Nottingham’s Jubilee Campus, where there were around 10 to 15 tents near the Advanced Manufacturing Building.
They also cover the University of Birmingham’s “Green Heart” outdoor area on its Edgbaston campus – the site of more than 80 tents last month – as well as its Exchange Building in central Birmingham and the Selly Oak campus where there are no protests.
Over the course of two hearings in London last week, the judge was told that the camps were part of nationwide protests at British universities, held in solidarity with demonstrations in North America and in support of people in conflict-torn Gaza.
Protesters, many of whom universities have been unable to identify, allege universities are “complicit” in the loss of life in Palestine and should “divest” from links to arms firms.
Muslim British-Pakistani student Mariyah Ali, 20, from Walsall, the only named defendant in the Birmingham case, said the legal action was a “censoring tactic” and discrimination against the “manifestation” of her religious and philosophical beliefs.
READ MORE: Alyn Smith: SNP party structures and staffing 'not fit for purpose'
Former student River Butterworth, 24, from Warwickshire, the sole named protester in the Nottingham legal challenge, argued a court order helping to “evict” the encampment would be a “disproportionate interference” with their free speech and protest rights.
Lawyers for the universities accused protesters of trespassing on private land, bringing a risk of public disturbance, causing disruption and financial loss as well as being allegedly linked to “unlawful activities”.
Justice Johnson said he came to his two rulings on the assumption that the camps were “peaceful” and did not rule on disputed accounts of alleged disruptive acts.
The judge said the evidence showed the universities were not trying to regain their land due to the protesters’ beliefs and that the legal action was the “least intrusive” way of achieving this.
He said there were “many other ways” activists could exercise their right to protest without occupying land, concluding that protesters were trespassing.
The rulings follow London School of Economics securing a Central London County Court order indefinitely barring encampments in one of its buildings after students slept in its atrium for more than a month in support of Palestine.
Queen Mary University of London has previously said it would take legal action to secure possession of its Mile End campus if protest encampments did not end.
Oliver Edwards, a solicitor from law firm Hodge Jones & Allen, who represents Ali, said she was “disheartened” but “remains committed to her cause”.
“Protests at universities have a long tradition in democratic society and we maintain that the university is breaching our client’s fundamental human rights,” he said.
He added that Ali intends to “restate her Boycott Divest Sanctions protest” and was considering appealing.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel