Information about the precautionary injunction order granted following hearing on 21 March 2025

The Order:    

kings_bench_associates_order.pdf

kings_bench_associates_order.pdf (1.71 MB)

The Judgement:   

judgment.pdf

judgment.pdf (342.32 KB)

The University of Cambridge took this action to protect the right of students to graduate and to prevent unauthorised access to buildings that contain sensitive, confidential information. This was never about preventing lawful protest. The injunction safeguards a very small part of the University estate from occupations that would prevent graduations from going ahead. It also protects the right for our staff to work. Protests occur regularly at the University, including a rally held immediately outside Great St Mary’s church during the graduation ceremony on 1 March while an injunction covering the Senate House, a few yards away, was in place.

The Judge, Mr Justice Soole, in his judgment, outlines the balance of the different interests struck by the injunction order:

90. I am also satisfied that the proposed injunction does provide a fair balance between the rights of all parties. The protesters and the campaign are left with ample opportunities and ability to protest their cause in Cambridge; and the University is enabled to carry on its administrative and ceremonial work in these core buildings and spaces. The fairness of the resulting balance was in my judgment well demonstrated by the events on the graduation day of 1 March, following the Order of Fordham J.

The University’s decision to bring the proceedings was based entirely on an assessment of the direct action threatened on the University and had nothing whatsoever to do with the particular race, religion, beliefs or cause of those responsible for previous occupations. 

The Judge pointed out that the University had carried out a careful, fair and measured analysis and had full and proper regard to its various duties under statute and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

The Judge was also content that students and others could express their opinions and beliefs elsewhere in Cambridge and its city centre:

92….  As to vigils and the like, there are ample other places for these to be carried out. I do not accept that in this or any respect the proposed injunction has the chilling effect which is alleged. Nor do I consider that the simple wearing of supportive and/or emblematic badges or clothing would put anyone at risk of breach of the proposed injunction.

The following reassurances can be given to the students (or other attendees) with regards to the effect of the injunction:

• The University is fully committed to freedom of speech and the right to protest within the law.
• The injunction is limited to two small sites: (i) Greenwich House (ii) The Old Schools, Senate House, and Senate House Yard. The injunction does not extend to the University’s wider estate or College land.
• The injunction does not prevent students or others discussing protest or protest- related events.
• The injunction does not prohibit people from entering or remaining at Greenwich House, Senate House or the Yard if they have been given the University’s permission to be there. For example, during graduations.
• The order makes no restriction on using or displaying legal slogans or symbols anywhere on University property. For example, wearing a pin badge which bears a slogan or symbol, or displaying a flag or sign.
• Aside from the injunction, graduands are required to continue to adhere to the rules on academical dress for graduation congregations and to observe the Rules of Behaviour.
• An individual with permission to be at the sites covered by the injunction may be asked to leave the property by a Proctor or other officer or staff member of the University if they act in breach of the rules on academical dress, the Rules of Behaviour or the Code of Practice on Freedom of Speech.
• If someone who has been given permission to be at the sites covered by the injunction refuses to leave when asked, it is possible that their actions may breach the injunction. However, this is not an automatic consequence. This will depend on the precise acts of the individual and whether the acts are prohibited under the injunction.
• If a person breaches the terms of the injunction, it will be for the University to decide whether to ask the Court for permission to bring proceedings against an individual. To breach the injunction would be a civil offence rather than a criminal offence.
• The injunction does not prohibit any student from making a request to hold an event or meeting on University property in accordance with the Code of Practice on Freedom of Speech and the room bookings procedure.