1. 1
Claim No. 2014/700
IN THE COUNTY COURT SITTING AT GLADBURY
BETWEEN:
MRS JOCELYN BARRATT
Claimant/Applicant
and
MS AMANDA DWYER
Defendant/Respondent
__________________
CHRONOLOGY
___________________
20th November 2014 - The Claimant came to learn that the Defendant had an affair
with her husband.
22nd November 2014 - The Claimant and the Defendant had their first heated exchange
where the Defendant came to learn that the Claimant was in
fact still alive and that Owen was not a widower.
24th November 2014 - The Claimant encountered a disturbance outside her house,
where she heard loud slogan chanting expressly about her.
Shortly after, the Claimant noticed a note which is exhibit JB/1

2. 2
in the letterbox before leaving for Edinburgh later. A female with
short dark hair and glasses and black hoodie top was present.
28th November 2014 - The Claimant returned/arrived home alone without her
husband.
29th November 2014 - The Claimant’s neighbour came and told her that
she received some leaflets with disturbing images through the
door indicating the Claimant as an animal murderer in very
vicious terms.
30th November 2014 - The Claimant went shopping and was disturbingly caught off
guard with a person behind her dressing as a rabbit painted in
such a way that the rabbit was covered in cuts and bloods. The
rabbit was carrying a placard that had the Claimant’s name
associated with animal cruelty. The placard had a picture of the
Claimant as well. The female with dark short hair and glasses
and black hoodie top was again present.
1st December 2014 - The Defendant was approached by the police.
13th /14th December 2014 -The Claimant will be taking part in a conference.

3. 3
Claim No. 2014/700
IN THE COUNTY COURT SITTING AT GLADBURY
BETWEEN:
MRS JOCELYN BARRATT
Claimant/Applicant
and
MS AMANDA DWYER
Defendant/Respondent
_____________________________
AMENDED DRAFT ORDER
_____________________________
Upon hearing Counsel for the Claimant and for the Defendant, and reading the witness
statements and exhibits in the case:
IT IS ORDERED THAT the Defendant be forbidden until further order from causing or
permitting any act that tends or intends to harass the Claimant or otherwise to act unlawfully.
In particular by refraining from the following activities:
1. Coming within 100 metres of the Claimant;
2. Approaching within 200 metres of the Claimant’s home at 20 Magnolia Dene, Gladbury;
3. Contacting or attempting to contact the Claimant either directly or indirectly;
4. Approaching within 200 metre of the Glenfeather Hotel on the 13th or 14th December 2014;
5. Causing to be distributed any form of leaflet or other printed material naming the Claimant
or bearing her image or in any other way identifying the Claimant;

4. 4
6. Interfering in any way with the lawful business of the Claimant;
7. Interfering with the reputation of the Claimant in any way.

5. 5
Claim No. 2014/700
IN THE COUNTY COURT SITTING AT GLADBURY
BETWEEN:
MRS JOCELYN BARRATT
Claimant/Applicant
and
MS AMANDA DWYER
Defendant/Respondent
________________________________________________________
SKELETON ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CLAIMANT
________________________________________________________
1. Introduction
1.1. This is an application for an interim injunction pursuant to CPR r.25 and s.37 (1) of the
County Courts Act 1984.
1.2. The parties involved are the Claimant (C), Jocelyn Barratt, and the Defendant (D), Amanda
Dwyer. D was previously in a relationship with C’s husband, Owen, upon which he chose
to cease the relationship with D.
1.3. Following that, a person believed to be D has conducted a series of acts in order to upset
C and create an image of C having a peripheral professional involvement in issues to do
with animal testing.

6. 6
2. Documents
2.1. The documents referred to in support of this application are:
Witness statements and exhibits:
The witness statement of Jocelyn Barratt dated 3/12/14 (Barratt).
The witness statement of Amanda Dwyer dated 5/12/14 (Dwyer).
Note dated 3/12/14 (JB/1).
Statutes: Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA).
Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (PHA).
Authorities: American Cyanamid v. Ethicon [1975] AC 396 (HL).
Cream Holdings Ltd v Banerjee and the Liverpool Post and Echo Ltd
[2004] UKHL 44.
Murray v Big Pictures (UK) Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 446
Others: Amended Draft order.
Chronology.

7. 7
3. TEST
3.1. The principles to be followed in determining whether or not to grant an interim injunction
have been laid down by the authority of American Cyanamid v. Ethicon [1975] AC 396
(HL) namely:
(a) Is there a serious question to be tried;
(b) The adequacy of damages for C and undertaking in damages for D; and
(c) The balance of convenience.
3.2. Only if the right to freedom of expression is engaged in accordance with Article 10 of the
ECHR, the first limb of the Cyanamid test must read in conjunction with s.12(3) of the
Human Rights Act 1998 which states:
“No such relief is to be granted so as to restrain publication before trial unless the court is
satisfied that the applicant is likely to establish that publication should not be allowed.”
4. Issues
4.1. The issues to be considered in this case are:
(a) Whether the conducts of D are capable of amounting to harassment under the 1997
Act.
(b) Whether the conducts of D caused C alarm and distress.
(c) Whether the motive for D’s conducts were reasonable.
(d) Is the infringement of C’s right to privacy and confidentiality outweighed by D’s right
to freedom of expression?

8. 8
5. Are there serious questions to be tried?
Whether the conducts of D are capable of amounting to harassment under the 1997 Act.
5.1. D has in fact pursue a course of conduct that are capable of amounting to harassment on
at least two occasions under the 1997 Act by:
(a) Deliberately causing a disturbance outside C’s house by explicitly associating her with
animal cruelty on the 24th November 2014 (JB W/S Para 3).
(b) Deliberately distributing leaflets through the door of C’s neighbour indicating that C is
an animal murderer on the 29th November 2014 (JB W/S Para 8).
(c) Deliberately using powerful, disgusting and disturbing figures to explicitly associate C
to animal cruelty in public (JB W/S Para 9).
Whether the conducts of D caused C alarm and distress.
5.2. The conducts of D mentioned, did in fact caused C alarm and distress. C is now forced to
take a week off work with stress and she is also staying at a secret location (JB W/S Para
12).
Whether the motive of D’s conducts were reasonable.
5.3. D’s conduct were in fact unreasonable by:
(a) Loudly chanting disturbing slogans by way of explicitly using C’s name in the early
hours of the morning outside C’s house, which is in a quiet residential road (JB W/S
Para 3).
(b) Distributing leaflets that have very disturbing images on them for the purpose of
referring C to very vicious terms to C’s neighbour (JB W/S Para 8).
(c) Using powerful, disgusting and disturbing figures to explicitly refer C to animal cruelty
in public by way of having a placard which read ‘SAVE MY ORGANS FROM
JOCELYNN BARRATT’. The placard also had an enlarged photograph of C (JB W/S
Para 9).

9. 9
Is the infringement of C’s right to privacy and confidentiality outweighed by D’s right to
freedom of expression?
5.4. A balance must be struck between C’s Article 8 rights and D’s Article 10 rights. Neither
has precedence over the other (Murray v Express, paragraph 24). In addition to the matters
referred to above the following considerations strongly favour the grant of an injunction:
(a) D’s rights under Article 10 may be restricted to protect the reputation or rights of others,
such as C’s reputation as an established scientist (JB W/S Para 4) and C’s Article 8
rights.
(b) D’s rights under Article 10 may be restricted for the prevention of disorder or crime,
such as harassment.
5.5. Therefore, it is submitted that, D’s course of conducts does amount to harassment that is
protected by the 1997 Act.
5.6. D cannot rely on her Article 10 rights so long as it is not engaged.
5.7. Following the decision in Cream Holdings Ltd v Banerjee and the Liverpool Post and
Echo Ltd, C has a real prospect of success in trial.
6. Whether D is acting out of malice.
6.1. The nature of D’s conduct as seen in paragraph 5.1 and 5.3 clearly shows that D is acting
out of spiteful revenge after losing out on C’s husband.
6.2. C confirms that D is indeed her husband’s ex-mistress, who is now harassing her, by the
following reasons:
(a) The repetition of the exact same phrase ‘cruel bitch’ by D (J/B WS Para 2) (J/B WS
Para 3).
(b) D has short dark hair and was wearing a black hoodie top and a pair of glasses (JB W/S
Para 5).
(c) Distinctive earrings worn by D which was bought by C’s husband in Morocco (JB W/S
Para 10).

10. 10
(d) Owen confirms that D does have short dark hair and sometimes wears glasses (JB W/S
Para 6).
(e) He also confirms that he had disclosed to D information regarding C’s job (JB W/S
Para 11).
6.3. Given that these abusive incidents occurred since the 24th November 2014, just two days
after the parties’ heated exchange (JB W/S Para 2), and that the feature of the female
matches the feature of D, the likely conclusion that could be drawn is that D is indeed C’s
husband’s ex-mistress, who is now harassing her.
7. Adequacy of damages for C
7.1. If an injunction is not granted, C’s career could be jeopardized along with the legitimate
business interests of the group that she works with.
7.2. Also, the loss of reputation will be impossible to measure and cannot be quantified by
money.
8. Undertaking in damages for D
8.1. If an injunction is granted, D does not suffer any losses.
8.2. Also, C has £100,000 equity in her house which she is happy to offer as much as the court
considers appropriate by way of an undertaking in damages.
9. Balance of convenience
9.1. If an injunction is not granted, C will be in a position where she may continue to suffer
more abusive incidents which will cause her immense stress and loss of reputation. C’s
career may also be jeopardized if the conference, that she is due to take part in, is sabotaged
by D and the activists that are supporting her (JB W/S Para 12). On the other hand, D
suffers no possible damages.

11. 11
10. Conclusion
10.1. C is not seeking to restrict D’s right to freedom of expression. Instead, C is merely
seeking the court’s protection over this coming weekend, and until any final hearing of the
case (JB W/S Para 13).