The University of Cambridge has been granted a High Court injunction against protests on certain parts of its campus until the end of July. While critics call the court order an infringement on free speech, the University maintains that the injunction is only intended to protect graduation ceremonies, rather than to prevent protests altogether.
Cambridge had initially sought a five-year injunction against protests on several sites throughout the city, but this request was dismissed by the Court in February. The limited version of the request, which has now been granted, only extends until 26 July. Mr Justice Soole sided with the University late last month, saying that there was an “imminent and real risk of recurrence” of protests aiming to disrupt graduation ceremonies on campus and a “strong probability that this will otherwise occur” without an injunction.
Drawing a distinction with Cambridge’s previous request, Justice Soole said that the “proposed terms are the minimum necessary in the circumstances”, adding that the new injunction “does provide a fair balance between the rights of all parties”.
Reacting to the verdict, the protest group Cambridge4Palestine wrote on Instagram: “BREAKING: Cambridge has turned protesting against a genocide into an arrestable offence”.
While the injunction applies to protests of any kind, unless approved by the University, the proceedings made it clear that gatherings related to the ongoing conflict in Gaza were of particular concern. Myriam Stacey KC, representing the University, told the Court that protestors most often seemed to be affiliated with Camrbridge4Palesitne.
Arguing against Cambridge’s request, the European Legal Support Center (ELSC) labelled the injunction a “disproportionate infringement” on human rights, adding that it would set a “dangerous precedent” for future protests on campus.
A Cambridge spokesperson said that the University “welcomed [the] decision at the High Court”, explaining that the “injunction safeguards a very small part of the University estate from an occupation that would prevent graduations from going ahead” and that it “was never about preventing lawful protest”.
Despite the duration being limited to four months rather than five years, critics worry that Court order remains too expansive and will have “a chilling effect” on staff and students exercising their right to protest. A spokesperson for Liberty, an NGO promoting civil liberties in the UK, said “It is not right that universities are curbing students’ abilities to [protest], and creating a hostile space for people simply trying to make their voices heard”. Likewise, Michael Abberton, President of the Cambridge UCU branch, expressed concern “that the order granted will have a chilling effect on our members exercising their rights to peaceful protest”.
However, reading the actual ruling from the High Court, it becomes clear that the injunction against protests is quite limited. First, it only lasts for four months, after which protestors will presumably be able to resume occupying parts of Cambridge’s private estate without being in held in contempt of court.
Second, the injunction only applies to three small areas of the campus: Greenwich House on Madingley Rise, Senate House and the Senate House Lawn on Trinity Street, and The Old Schools on Trinity Lane. As such, the injunction only affects a tiny percentage of the total area owned by the University and its composite colleges. These locations are in intrinsically involved with the central administration of the University and, in the case of Senate House, virtually synonymous with the graduation ceremonies.
Moreover, Cambridge has good reason to believe that protestors would target these locations and attempt to disrupt graduation ceremonies. In May 2024, pro-Palestinian protestors ‘occupied’ Senate House Lawn, setting up tents and flying flags from the surrounding fence. At the time, Cambridge ended up moving its graduation ceremonies to Downing College, even though a deal to remove the encampment was struck with the protestors shortly before the ceremonies were scheduled to begin.
A similar event took place in November when a “reoccupation” of Senate House forced the University to move ceremonies to the nearby Great St Mary’s Church. In the same month, protestors had also taken over Greenwich House, preventing staff from accessing key parts of the building.
Now, given the injunction, any person protesting at one of the three locations listed may be held in contempt of court and imprisoned, fined or have their assets seized as a result. These restrictions will remain in place until the last graduation ceremony of the academic year has concluded on 26 July.
It should be clear from the above that this limited injunction is not preventing members of the University from “exercising their right to peaceful protest”, nor does it turn “protesting genocide into an arrestable offence”.
Indeed, students and staff can and should continue protesting any element of the University’s policies that they disagree with. This is part of their right to freedom of speech within the law and a healthy aspect of university life. None of this is infringed by a court order preventing them from disrupting the graduation ceremonies of their fellow students.
As a spokesperson for Cambridge pointed out: “[p]rotests occur regularly at the University, including a rally held immediately outside Great St Mary’s church during [a previous] graduation ceremony while an injunction covering the Senate House, a few yard away, was in place”.