In what is likely to be the broadest protest injunction yet, a High Court has granted Cardiff University the right to prohibit any attempt to “enter, occupy or remain upon” key parts of campus “for the purposes of protest”. Anyone who violates the injunction “may be imprisoned, fined or have their assets seized”.
The University decided to seek the injunction against protests in response to a pro-Palestine encampment outside of its main building. According to a Cardiff University spokesperson, the encampment raised “a number of safety, well-being, and safeguarding issues”, which led to a formal Notice to Vacate. When the deadline of that notice was ignored, the spokesperson insists that the University was “left with little option other than to seek an order for possession and an order for precautionary injunctive relief from the Court”.
This relief was granted by Sir Peter Lane on 13 June, and prohibits any unauthorised protest on 11 sites across the Cardiff University campus. The injunction lasts until the end of July 2026. While the University maintains that the injunction was necessary to ensure “the safety of everyone in our university community”, critics are concerned that the injunction is too expansive, both in its geographical reach and duration.
The European Legal Support Centre, which opposed the University’s application in court, argued that the proposed injunction went beyond the areas affected by encampments or occupations, and instead amounted to a de facto campus-wide ban. The judge dismissed this argument, contending that the scope of the prohibition was confined to what was strictly necessary.
This is the latest in a series of attempts by universities to curb protests, and especially encampments, on their campuses. While most if not all cases are sparked by pro-Palestine occupations, the resulting injunctions apply to all demonstrations. There is reason to worry that some of these injunctions go too far in limiting the ability of staff and students to protest the actions of their universities.
Nuance is key when considering the scope of these injunctions. Of course, universities should not have to tolerate forceful occupations of administrative buildings or essential teaching areas. CAF has on multiple occasions defended educational institutions taking disciplinary or even legal actions against such forms of protest. However, these concerns can only justify fairly limited prohibitions on demonstrations.
Comparing this latest injunction to the one granted to the University of Cambridge back in March reveals an alarming growth in legal restrictions on the right of protest. Cambridge was granted an injunction on three specific sites, specifically related to the traditional graduation ceremony at Senate House and the most central administrative buildings. Moreover, the injunction lasted only till the end of the term, when the last graduations of this academic year had concluded. This was despite the University originally requesting a much broader and longer lasting injunction, a request rejected by the High Court.
Cardiff, on the other hand, was granted almost everything it asked for, including the extension of the injunction over 11 central sites. These are not just administrative buildings. The Main Building, Park Place, and several faculty buildings are also covered by the ban. More importantly, the prohibitions against protests covers not only the buildings themselves, but also nearby green spaces, such as the Horseshoe Drive – a traditional place for student protests to gather. Finally, the injunction is not focused on a specific emergency, but lasts for an entire year.
It is worth reiterating that the injunction does not only apply to attempted occupations of buildings or encampments on private land, but to all attempts to “enter” the sites, including the surrounding green spaces, “for the purposes of protest”. In effect, this means that no protest can take place on any of these key parts of campus without prior authorisation by the University. It is hard to see how this was necessary to ensure the safety of the community.
A spokesperson from the university rejected the claim that Cardiff had “banned every form of protest”, claiming that the injunction does “not prohibit lawful protest”. This borders on sophistry. Any protest not explicitly authorised by the University is illegal under this injunction. So of course, Cardiff has not prohibited protests that it decides to allow – but this hardly makes it a defender of free speech.
Here, a critic might object that Cardiff could simply decide to allow all sorts of protests, except occupations and encampments, thereby preserving the ability of staff and students to protest. However, such an argument would entirely miss the point of academic freedom and free speech. Being forced to ask for permission to protest peacefully, at the risk imprisonment if you do not, transforms a right into a privilege – something that can be taken away at the moment you displease the authorities.
This is not hyperbole. The injunction does not allow for an appeals process or any other means of redress for those seeking to stage a peaceful demonstration on campus. If the University says no, that’s the end of it. Granted, the prohibition only lasts for a year, but given that the judge thought the case urgent enough to provide such a broad injunction even though the encampment in question had already disbanded at the time of the hearing, there is no guarantee that it could not be extended next summer based on some other lame excuse.
A spokesperson for the Cardiff UCU branch told WalesOnline that the wording of the injunction “raises serious worries about staff and students’ right to protest as well as potentially endangering legitimate trade union activities such as picketing and holding rallies”. Indeed, nothing in this injunction implies that the UCU could not also be refused access to the relevant sites. This creates an unhealthy power imbalance between the University and its staff and students.
Protest injunctions can be justified and are sometimes even necessary to protect the core functions of an institution, but they must be limited in scope and duration to safeguard to right of university members to organise and speak their minds. The powers granted to Cardiff are too broad, and we urge the University to use them sparingly and only with great consideration.