Case Study: The Silencing of Robert Pickthall – Cheshire West and Chester Council v Pickthall [2015] EWHC 2141 (QB)

Court: Queen’s Bench Division, Manchester District Registry

Date: 23 July 2015

Judge: Mr Justice Edis

Claimant Counsel: Adam Speker KC

Defendant: Robert Pickthall (litigant in person)

Background

This High Court judgment concerned an interim injunction brought by Cheshire West and Chester Council (CWAC) against Robert Pickthall, a local government critic and FOI campaigner. The Council alleged harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, primarily based on Mr Pickthall’s online publications, which included allegations of misconduct, corruption, and cover-ups involving public officials.

Key Legal Issues

  • Whether Mr Pickthall’s writings and allegations constituted harassment under the 1997 Act.
  • Whether his actions were protected by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (freedom of expression).
  • Whether his conduct was legally justified on grounds of preventing or detecting crime (Section 1(3)(a) of the Act).

Outcome

Mr Justice Edis granted an interim injunction prohibiting further publications, ruling that the Council was likely to succeed at trial and that the defendant’s Article 10 rights were outweighed by the need to protect claimants from distress and reputational harm. The injunction significantly restricted Mr Pickthall’s ability to speak out pending a full hearing.

Concerns Raised

  • Weaponisation of Harassment Law: The use of the Protection from Harassment Act in this context has been widely criticised as a tactic to silence legitimate public interest campaigners.
  • Conflict of Interest: At the time, a senior official at the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) was also allegedly holding a senior position at CWAC, raising concerns of collusion between the regulator and the public authority being criticised.
  • FOI Suppression: Pickthall, like others, had been labeled “vexatious” under Section 14(1) of the FOIA using the Dransfield precedent, despite his investigations exposing potential wrongdoing.
  • Suspicious Circumstances: Mr Pickthall died under contested and suspicious circumstances. Key evidence and witnesses were omitted from his inquest. Campaigners believe his legal targeting may have contributed to his health decline and eventual death.

Broader Implications

This case is a chilling example of how UK public authorities may use the courts to silence dissent under the guise of protecting staff from harassment. It highlights the urgent need for SLAPP protections, better FOI accountability, and clear separation of regulatory and prosecutorial powers.