University of Cambridge granted High Court injunction against protesters
Last month, a judge dismissed a request by the university for a five-year injunction blocking direct action related to the conflict on several sites without the university's consent.
The university returned to the High Court on Wednesday, asking a judge for a four-month injunction preventing protesters from disrupting multiple graduation events on two sites planned up to July 26, the final graduation ceremony of the academic year.
The European Legal Support Center (ELSC) opposed the university's bid, with its lawyers telling the court the injunction is a 'disproportionate infringement' on the human rights of the protesters and would set a 'dangerous precedent' for protesting on campuses.
In a ruling on Friday, Mr Justice Soole granted the injunction, stating there is an 'imminent and real risk of a recurrence' of direct action on the campus and a 'strong probability that this will otherwise occur' if the order is not issued.
He said: 'I am satisfied that there is a compelling need for the granting of an injunction.'
He added the 'proposed terms are the minimum necessary in the circumstances'.
Lawyers for the university told the court in London that last year, pro-Palestine protesters staged demonstrations at Senate House Yard and Greenwich House, which 'forced' a graduation ceremony to be moved.
Myriam Stacey KC, for the university, told the hearing there is a 'real and imminent risk' of further action on campus, with protesters saying 'we will be back' after leaving Senate House Yard at the end of November.
She said the protesters appeared to be mostly affiliated with the group Cambridge for Palestine, whose stated aims online include for the university to 'divest from institutions and companies complicit in the ongoing ethnic cleansing of Palestine'.
She told the court: 'It is the activity we are seeking to stop, not the viewpoint. It is legally irrelevant who is doing this. It is what they are doing that we object to.'
Ms Stacey continued in written submissions that the university sought to prohibit protesters from entering, occupying or remaining on the sites for direct action without its consent, directly blocking access to the sites, or erecting or placing structures on them, such as tents or sleeping equipment.
Owen Greenhall, for ELSC, said in written submissions the university was discriminating against the 'race and/or political belief' of protesters as it was only after pro-Palestine actions that it began seeking an injunction, allowing other demonstrations such as those for Ukraine or industrial action.
He said an injunction was 'not necessary' and would have a 'chilling effect on political expression at Cambridge'.
But Mr Justice Soole said the injunction 'does provide a fair balance between the rights of all parties'.
Following the ruling, a spokesperson for the university said: 'The University of Cambridge welcomes today's decision at the High Court.
'We took this action to protect the right of students to graduate and to prevent 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 an occupation 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 last graduation ceremony while an injunction covering the Senate House, a few yards away, was in place.'
Cambridge for Palestine said it 'condemns' the decision, which it described as 'a violent move to criminalise and police our movement'.
Anna Ost, senior legal officer at ELSC, said: 'It is more important than ever to resist attempts to shut down protests for Palestinian liberation.
'The extent of the five-year injunction the university originally asked for demonstrated that they were seeking to restrict protests.'
She continued: 'Instead of acting urgently to review their investments, the university has stalled and sought to silence their critics with this injunction.
'We remain deeply concerned about the broader trend of universities using legal measures to target solidarity with Palestine.'
Ruth Ehrlich, head of advocacy and campaigns at Liberty, which also intervened in the case, said: 'Today's judgment sets a dangerous precedent which will severely restrict protest rights on campus.
'Students have long been at the forefront of movements for social change, whether in opposing apartheid or rising tuition fees.
'It is not right that universities are curbing students' ability to do so, and creating a hostile space for people simply trying to make their voices heard.
'We urge universities to allow students to speak up for what they believe in on campus, and to protect the right to protest.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
41 minutes ago
- BBC News
MPs urge UK to immediately recognise Palestinian state
The UK should immediately recognise the state of Palestine, a majority of MPs on the Commons foreign affairs committee have said. It comes as Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer faces fresh calls from within Labour's ranks to make the move, amid warnings of mass starvation in Gaza, and after France indicated it would be doing so within months. In a new report, the Labour and Lib Dem MPs on the select committee argue that statehood is an "inalienable right" that should "not be made conditional".But their two Tory colleagues said a state of Palestine should only be recognised as part of a long-term political solution to the conflict in the Middle East, echoing the Labour government's position. French President Emmanuel Macron said on Thursday evening that his country would officially recognise a Palestinian state at a UN meeting in Keir has previously said the UK should reserve recognition of Palestinian statehood for when it would have the "greatest impact" - without specifying when this would in a report published on Friday, the committee said the government should make the move "while there is still a state to recognise". "An inalienable right should not be made conditional," the report adds."The government cannot continue to wait for the perfect time because experience shows that there will never be a perfect time."That section of the report was backed by all six Labour MPs who voted, including chairwoman Dame Emily Thornberry, and the two Lib Dems on the was not endorsed by its two Conservative members, Aphra Brandreth and Sir John Whittingdale, who said the UK should only back the move as part of a wider two-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian is not unusual for select committees to be split on controversial issues but they will normally try to speak with one Tory MPs on the foreign affairs committee made an unsuccessful attempt to change the report to reflect their views, arguing that recognition should accompany the release of hostages taken by Hamas in October 2023, and the creation of Palestinian authorities without Hamas 60 MPs reportedly called for the UK to immediately recognise Palestine in a letter earlier this month, with London major Sir Sadiq Khan also making the call on Wednesday. In a statement on Thursday evening condemning "unspeakable and indefensible" conditions in Gaza, Sir Keir said statehood was an "inalienable right".He reiterated his call for a ceasefire in the conflict, adding this would "put us on a path" towards recognising a Palestinian Secretary Jonathan Reynolds had earlier said Labour ministers were "deeply committed" to recognition, but they wanted it to be "meaningful," adding: "At the minute, there is not a Palestinian state there". 'Not listening' Most countries - about 139 in all - formally recognise a Palestinian state, although many European nations - and the United States - say they will only do so as part of moves towards a long-term resolution to the Ireland and Norway formally took the step last year, hoping to exert diplomatic pressure to secure a ceasefire in currently has limited rights to participate in the work of the UN, and is also recognised by various international organisations, including the Arab argue recognition would largely be a symbolic gesture unless questions over the leadership and extent of a Palestine state are addressed their report, the MPs acknowledged that the Israeli government "is not listening to the UK," and was only "sporadically" listening to the United States, by far its most significant military to the BBC on Tuesday, former UK Foreign Office boss Lord McDonald argued recognition itself "doesn't really amount to very much," adding that a Palestine state lacked defined borders or an "agreed government". Aid distribution call The report comes after the UK and 27 other countries condemned the "drip feeding of aid and the inhumane killing of civilians" seeking food and water in foreign ministry rejected the countries' statement, saying it was "disconnected from reality and sends the wrong message to Hamas".In the rest of their report, which was endorsed unanimously, the MPs called for a UN-led system to distribute aid in Gaza, replacing the controversial US-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) in place since also said the UK should justify how "allowing indirect exports" of British parts for F-35 fighter jets used by Israel complies with the UK's obligations under international UK says it does not export the parts directly to Israel, but rather to manufacturing centres abroad as part of a global programme, and it cannot prevent Israel from obtaining the components. Sign up for our Politics Essential newsletter to read top political analysis, gain insight from across the UK and stay up to speed with the big moments. It'll be delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
The Guardian
3 hours ago
- The Guardian
There is a dangerous disconnect: on Gaza, politics no longer speaks for the people
It was meant to be a cosy conversation about cooking and new motherhood. But BBC Radio 4's Woman's Hour took an unexpectedly bleak turn on Thursday morning, when the chef Yasmin Khan turned suddenly tearful in the middle of promoting her new cookbook, saying she couldn't talk about her own struggles to breastfeed without mentioning the mothers in Gaza unable to provide for their literally starving babies. It was a striking illustration of how far this medieval horror has broken through, bleeding across the everyday lives even of people who don't usually follow politics. You don't have to know anything about the Middle East to understand what those newspaper pictures of emaciated children, with their drawn little faces and heartbreakingly visible ribs, mean. This is what famine looks like, right down to the return of Bob Geldof, begging the world to act just as he did 40 years ago at Live Aid. Except this time it's no natural disaster, but what the World Health Organization calls a man-made mass starvation: the chillingly avoidable consequence of an aid system forcing people to choose between risking their lives for a bag of flour, or dying for lack of one. More than 1,000 people have been killed by Israeli forces while seeking food in Gaza since May, according to the UN. Médecins Sans Frontières says even its staff, lucky enough still to be earning salaries, are now going hungry: there's almost nothing left to buy in the markets. The newswire Agence France-Presse spoke of watching helplessly as its Palestinian freelancers, who have risked everything to get news out of Gaza when foreign journalists can't get in, become too weak to work. Meanwhile, back in Britain, people who want to see arrests for war crimes read instead about clampdowns on pro-Palestine activists. That ministers have been quick to empathise with the frustrations of a very different crowd protesting at the housing of asylum seekers in hotels merely adds salt to the wounds. Labour MPs are openly desperate now for their government to do something more than issue dramatically worded threats of future action that never quite materialises. Even cabinet ministers are publicly lobbying for the formal recognition of Palestinian statehood while (in the words of Wes Streeting, who could easily lose his marginal Ilford North seat over this war) there's still a Palestine left. Recognition would be a largely symbolic act of solidarity, which in itself would do little to fill hungry bellies in Gaza. But ministers' problem is that there seems increasingly little reason for not doing it now: the longstanding argument that this prize should be saved for the right moment, to help unlock progress towards a two-state solution, made more sense when the two-state dream wasn't being actively crushed in front of us. But perhaps the real plea here is for Keir Starmer to recognise the country he actually leads. After the horrors of the 7 October 2023 massacre, there was broad acceptance that Israel could not be expected simply to sit back and do nothing. Even a year into what was by then a highly divisive war, YouGov found that more than half of Britons still felt Israel had been justified in going into Gaza. But critically, only 14% felt its use of force there was proportionate. Sympathy has drained away as Israel's war of self-defence began to resemble first one of vengeance, and then something darker. In language no former Israeli prime minister uses lightly, Ehud Olmert has described a proposal to corral Palestinians into a settlement on the ruins of Rafah and prevent them leaving as in effect a 'concentration camp'. More than half of Britons now favour financial sanctions like those slapped on prominent Russians over Ukraine, or suspending arms sales. These arguments are now mainstream, cross-party – the veteran Tory MPs Kit Malthouse and Edward Leigh made passionate cases in parliament this week for recognising Palestine – and driven not by the kind of creeping antisemitism Starmer was quite right to confront in his own party, but by what people see every morning, scrolling through their phones. David Lammy's rhetoric is already about as strong as a foreign secretary's can get – this week he condemned Israel's 'inhumane' and 'dangerous' new aid system, and what he called 'settler terrorism' in the West Bank – and many Labour MPs suspect he'd privately like to go further than the sanctions and restrictions on arms sales he listed. But Downing Street is said to be wary of getting ahead of Donald Trump at a crucial stage in ceasefire negotiations (with Israel's parliament going into summer recess, relieving some pressure on the minority government of its prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, it's hoped there is a window for a deal). Britain has always argued that our influence over Israel is best magnified by synchronising efforts with the US, and though the chaos of this White House makes that harder, Trump's is still the only voice Netanyahu really hears. Yet while everyone prays for that ceasefire deal to be done, a dangerous gap is opening in Britain between parliament and people. A year into power, Starmer is increasingly adept at foreign policy, but much less so at handling the emotive domestic blowback from it. Without seeing the intelligence reports crossing the desk of the home secretary, Yvette Cooper, I wouldn't second-guess her decision to proscribe Palestine Action as a terror group. A breach of security at RAF Brize Norton was never going to be taken lightly. But, inevitably, the process of police officers trying to figure out in real time what elderly vicars can or can't now say in public about Palestine has caused its share of farce and fury. After a retired teacher was arrested for allegedly holding a sign featuring a Private Eye cartoon about the proscription, West Yorkshire police issued an unusual statement saying they were sorry if he was 'unhappy with the circumstances' of his arrest. As with this summer's other prospective powder keg, the protests building up outside some asylum seeker accommodation, doubtless everyone is learning as they go. There is, however, only so much policing can do to resolve what are really political conflicts, born in both cases of frustration with what both sets of protesters (in their very different ways) see as political failure to act. To hold together all these volatile, mutually hostile parts of a fractured society through a hot and angry summer will be head-spinningly complicated, a daunting ask even for an experienced government. Yet that's the nature of the job Starmer applied for last July. A year on, we must all hope he is equal to it. Gaby Hinsliff is a Guardian columnist Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
Reuters
4 hours ago
- Reuters
Trump signs order aimed at curbing big-money college sports payouts
WASHINGTON, July 24 (Reuters) - President Donald Trump waded into a debate over the influence of big-money payouts in college sports on Thursday, signing an executive order adding federal government scrutiny to the practice. The order, which is expected to face legal challenges, seeks to block some recruiting payments by third parties like donors to college athletes in big-dollar sports like football and men's basketball in order to preserve funds available for women's and non-revenue sports. Though the practice is already forbidden by the National Collegiate Athletic Association, some donors have found ways to bypass the rules to recruit top talent with lucrative offers. The policy is not aimed at fair-market compensation to athletes for brand endorsements, the White House said. The order also pushes colleges to raise scholarship payments for non-revenue sports and directs U.S. officials to start "clarifying" the legal status of student-athletes. Trump's directive could lead to changes in school budgets as well as the multimillion-dollar market for U.S. college athletes, and it could lead to limitations on payouts or employment rights for those athletes. Yet how exactly the policy will be enforced is still to be determined. Under the order, federal officials will develop a plan to deliver on Trump's order using "all available and appropriate regulatory, enforcement, and litigation mechanisms," including their funding power over states, colleges and universities. Since taking office in January, Trump has repeatedly tried to intervene in actions by sports leagues, colleges and universities. A February executive order aimed to bar transgender women from competing in women's sports. The United States Olympic & Paralympic Committee implemented such a ban this week, citing the order. Trump has also targeted elite universities' federal funding over topics including pro-Palestinian student protests. Columbia University on Wednesday said it would pay over $200 million in a settlement to resolve federal probes and have most of its suspended federal funding restored. The NCAA, which governs U.S. sports in higher education, had long prohibited student-athletes from receiving compensation for athletics outside of scholarships in a bid to preserve the amateurism of college sports and keep the playing field fair for recruiting. But in June 2021, the organization approved an interim policy allowing college athletes to make money by selling their name, image and likeness (NIL) rights. The policy allowed student athletes to make money through activities such as signing autographs, endorsing products or businesses, and making personal appearances so long as the activities were legal in the state where the school was located. In March 2025, the NCAA agreed to permanently eliminate its rule that prohibited student athletes from negotiating NIL deals before enrolling in a school. The change came a day after a legal settlement between the NCAA and a group of state attorneys general who had sued the organization, arguing that the restriction violated federal antitrust law. The changes in recent years on NIL payments, the White House said, "has created a chaotic environment that threatens the financial and structural viability of college athletics." Michael LeRoy, a University of Illinois labor and employment relations professor, said the order would likely be challenged as unconstitutional. "The fact that players want to have the same rights under antitrust law that everybody else has is not a problem," he said. The problem, he said, is that the NCAA and athletic conferences that govern top sports "have stubbornly refused to grant employment status and collective bargaining to athletes." In a statement, NCAA President Charlie Baker said it was grateful for the administration's focus on the issue and said that new legislation may be necessary to address problems facing college sports. "There are some threats to college sports that federal legislation can effectively address and the Association is advocating with student-athletes and their schools for a bipartisan solution with Congress and the Administration," he said.
