Cambridge University obtains final injunction against Cambridge for Palestine protesters

The High Court has granted Cambridge University a final injunction preventing further protest encampments on its premises, following a sustained campaign of direct action by Palestine solidarity activists. Mr Justice Butcher's judgement in Cambridge v Persons Unknown [2025] EWHC 2330 (KB) provides significant guidance on balancing property rights against protest freedoms.

Background and protest activity

The case emerged from a year-long campaign by Cambridge for Palestine (C4P), involving multiple unauthorised occupations of university premises. Key incidents included a May 2024 encampment in Senate House Yard that disrupted graduation ceremonies, forcing relocation to various colleges, and a November 2024 occupation of Greenwich House where protesters accessed restricted areas and confidential documents.

The protesters' stated demands included full disclosure of financial ties with organisations they deemed complicit in Israeli actions, divestment from such entities, reinvestment in Palestinian academic initiatives, and establishment of sanctuary provisions for at-risk students.

C4P maintained an uncompromising stance throughout, declaring "we will not stop" and promising "principled escalation" until their demands were met. Social media posts emphasised their intention to continue disrupting university operations indefinitely.

Legal framework and human rights considerations

Butcher J applied established principles for precautionary injunctions against persons unknown, drawing heavily on guidance from Wolverhampton City Council v London Gypsies and Travellers regarding "newcomer" cases. The judge confirmed that a "compelling need" standard applied, requiring careful balancing of competing interests.

The university proceeded on the basis that it constituted a public authority, acknowledging potential engagement of protesters' Article 10 (expression) and Article 11 (assembly) rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. However, the court found these rights did not provide an absolute defence to trespass claims.

Crucially, Butcher J rejected arguments that the injunction lacked sufficient clarity, particularly regarding the "consent" provisions allowing permitted protests under university codes of practice. The judge noted that similar interim orders had operated effectively without generating interpretive difficulties.

Proportionality assessment

The court conducted a detailed proportionality analysis, weighing the university's legitimate interests in protecting its premises against protesters' expression rights. Several factors proved decisive:

The injunction applied only to three specific sites with histories of disruption, rather than blanket restrictions. The prohibitions were not absolute but allowed for protests with proper consent under established university procedures. Alternative venues remained available for lawful demonstration, including the city centre location where protesters had successfully held rallies.

Butcher J specifically dismissed suggestions that existing police powers provided adequate alternatives, noting these were reactive rather than preventative measures. The judge endorsed the university's preference for civil rather than criminal enforcement, describing reliance on police intervention as an unreasonable expectation.

Practical implications

The final injunction runs for one year, covering Senate House and Senate House Yard, Old Schools, Greenwich House, and Chestnut Tree Lawn. It prohibits unauthorised entry, occupation, obstruction of access, and protest activities without proper consent.

Significantly, the order includes procedural safeguards allowing any affected person to apply for variation or discharge. Contempt proceedings require court permission, and the maximum two-year penalty reflects the most serious cases rather than typical enforcement outcomes.

The judgement reinforces that Convention rights do not confer unlimited "freedom of forum" on protesters. While acknowledging the importance of Palestine-related concerns, the court emphasised that effective alternative means of expression remained available.

This decision consolidates recent trends favouring institutional property rights over disruptive protest tactics, whilst maintaining theoretical space for legitimate demonstration within appropriate legal frameworks. The careful proportionality analysis provides a template for similar cases involving campus protests and unauthorised occupations.