The University of Cambridge has been granted an injunction preventing protesters from occupying Senate House until March 1, but have had their application for a five-year encampment ban shot down.

In a High Court hearing yesterday (27/02), Mr Justice Fordham ruled in favour of a “very narrow and limited court order” preventing disruption to planned graduations over the weekend. But, he rejected the proposed injunction of five years on the grounds that restrictions on events beyond Saturday’s graduations were not “necessary and justified”.

The University’s original application for an injunction aimed to prohibit pro-Palestine protesters from entering, occupying, or interfering with access to Senate House, Old Schools, and Greenwich House. This claim was made on the basis of “irreparable harm” caused by previous disruptions to the University by encampments last year.

Occupations took place in November last year on Senate House lawn and Greenwich House, the University’s central financial office, to protest Cambridge’s response to the conflict in Israel and Gaza. They called on Cambridge to condemn “genocide” in Palestine, and to divest its holdings in companies which support the Israeli war effort.

The occupations came after accusations that the University was “watering down” its agreements made with Cambridge for Palestine (C4P) on arms investments. Cambridge had originally offered to review its arms investments, on the condition that C4P dismantle its encampment on King’s Parade.

The arms review is ongoing, but on 14 November last year, the University published a statement on the status of the working group, which acknowledged a delay to the group’s work. The statement claimed that the group’s initial “timescales” for reviewing its weapons ties were “optimistic”.

In the High Court’s ruling, Justice Fordham claimed that an interim injunction would prevent the negative “impact of a relocation” of graduations. However, he noted that the University had only provided evidence of two disrupted ceremonies and three prospective ones, claiming that “It was important that the court was given a full factual picture and not simply told about the graduation events that had been disrupted.”

This ruling also excluded Greenwich House and the Old Schools site from injunctions, on the basis that neither were involved in graduation ceremonies.

Following the ruling, Cambridge for Palestine put out a statement claiming a “significant political victory” and that the court had “rejected Cambridge’s attempt to criminalise protest”.

Cambridge has maintained that the proposed injunctions do not restrict freedom of speech or freedom to protest, claiming that “Any claim that the University is trying to restrict protest is ridiculous”.

A spokesperson for the University re-affirmed this commitment following the ruling, stating: “The university welcomes the decision to grant an interim injunction which protects the right of students to graduate at the Senate House this weekend. The Court agreed that this injunction does not undermine freedom of speech. The University is fully committed to supporting the right to protest and to freedom of speech within the law. There are many places that protests within the law can take place.”

They have also cited the financial damage caused by occupations last year as a justification for injunctions, with a witness statement by Emma Rampton, the University’s registrary claiming that the occupations of Greenwich House and Senate House cost the University “at least £230 000”.

This went towards additional security and the cleaning of Greenwich House after the occupation ended, including an electronic security sweep. It also included “substantial” legal costs related to the University’s application for an interim non-disclosure order against protesters who accessed confidential documents.

The University said that this disruption caused “significant stress” for University and college staff, and had a “significant adverse impact” on graduands and their guests. It warned that in the future it might not be able to source alternative buildings at short notice.

The applications for injunctions were met with significant opposition from staff and students, with an open letter campaign launched last week labelling the action an “authoritarian reflex”.

This sentiment has also been expressed by the Cambridge Student’s Union, who published a statement claiming that the injunctions would “limit students’ rights to protests, express dissent, and hold institutions accountable”.