Unauthorised flags - High Court injunction granted

The High Court has granted an injunction in favour of Oxfordshire County Council to prevent the continued unauthorised placement of flags on or near the public highway.

Parties to the claim

Oxfordshire County Council (claimant)

-and-

1. Ben Cullen
2. Kevin Good
3. Ryan Bridge
4. Trudy Wells
5. Persons unknown intending to:
   
   1. attach flags to highway structures or mark flags on the highway in the County of Oxfordshire
   2. harass members of Oxfordshire County Council
   3. obstruct or harass employees or contractors of Oxfordshire County Council involved in the removal of flags from highway structures (defendants)

Case update

Hearing on 23 June 2026

At a hearing before the High Court on 23 June 2026, Oxfordshire County Council was granted an interim injunction against the Fifth Defendant with a return date of 9 July 2026. The First, Third and Fourth Defendants gave undertakings to the Court on 23 June 2026 in the same terms.

Hearing on 9 July 2026

At the hearing on 9 July 2026, the Court issued a final injunction in respect of the Second and Fifth Defendants with effect for one year, with the option to extend this further.

Court order

The Court made the following orders pursuant to the final Injunction Order dated 9 July 2026:

1. This final injunction Order replaces the interim injunction in this claim made by Dexter Dias J on 23 June 2026, which is discharged with effect from today.
2. With immediate effect until 9 July 2027 (or as extended by further order), the Second Defendant (Kevin Good) and the Fifth Defendant (persons unknown intending to: (i) attach flags to highway structures or mark flags on the highway in the County of Oxfordshire, (ii) harass members of Oxfordshire County Council or (iii) obstruct or harass employees of Oxfordshire County Council involved in the removal of flags from highway structures) shall not:
   
   1. attach any flag or cause any flag to be attached to any highway structure;
   2. paint or mark any flag on any of the highways;
   3. obstruct the claimant’s officers or contractors from removing flags from highway structures;
   4. cause harassment, alarm or distress to the claimant’s members or to officers or contractors of the claimant who are or have been involved in the removal of flags from highway structures, including the decision to remove them.
3. The Second Defendant and Fifth Defendant shall not encourage any other person to act in a way prohibited by paragraph (2) above.

Effect of this order

It is a contempt of court for any person notified of this Order knowingly to assist in, or permit, a breach of this Order. Any person doing so may be sent to prison, fined, or have their assets confiscated.

The Council will monitor the situation closely and seek robust action against any individual or group in breach of the Order, including seeking its costs in issuing proceedings.

Key court documents

The Court’s Sealed Order dated 9 July 2026, the details of the claim and supporting documents are below.

• Sealed injunction order 9 July 2026  (pdf format, 174KB)
• Skeleton argument on behalf of the claimant for the hearing on 9 July 2026 (pdf format, 225 KB)
• Particulars of claim (pdf format, 171 KB)
• Sealed application notice (R) (pdf format, 395 KB)
• Sealed claim form (R) (pdf format, 172 KB)
• Further supporting documentation

Return hearing at the High Court

The matter was listed for a return hearing on 9 July 2026 (10.30am at the Royal Courts of Justice) before the Honourable Mr Justice Dexter Dias, where the Court considered the operation of the injunction and granted an injunction in final form by sealed Order dated 9 July 2026. 

Background

Why the Council applied

The Council’s application aimed to stop repeated interference with the highway and the Council’s legal duties as highway authority. It relates to a series of incidents involving named individuals associated with the organisation known as Raise the Colours.

What the incidents involved

This includes the unauthorised placement of flags on highway infrastructure, amounting to a criminal offence. It also includes trespass, obstruction of the highway, and incidents where council teams, contractors and residents have faced confrontation or harassment when items are removed. 

This activity has created clear road safety and public safety risks and caused distress in local communities. A civil injunction is a court order that requires an individual or organisation to stop specified activities. It prohibits further unauthorised installations on or near the highway and allows the Council to take enforcement action if the order is breached.

Previous action and community impact

The application follows months of sustained activity involving the placement of flags on or near the public highway without permission. This continued despite a formal legal notice in March 2026 requiring it to stop, and further pre-action letters sent to named individuals in May 2026.

Residents across Oxfordshire, from Adderbury to Wallingford, have complained to the Council about safety risks, intimidation and distress linked to this activity. Council teams have also been subject to abuse and harassment when removing unlawful flags. 

The Council has a legal duty to keep the highway safe and ensure that public spaces are safe and inclusive. The ongoing scale and persistence of the behaviour by Raise the Colours has created safety risks, caused distress within communities, and led to abuse and intimidation directed at council teams and residents. The Council has a duty to act to protect those affected.

Statement from the Leader of Oxfordshire County Council

Leader of Oxfordshire County Council, Cllr Tim Bearder, said:

“We’re pleased with this result. The injunction helps protect our residents and our workforce and supports our responsibility to keep the highway safe. This is not, and never has been, about the flag. We proudly fly the Union Flag and St George’s flag at County Hall and we fully support the right of residents to display their own flags – including to show their support for the England football team.

However, the behaviour we’ve seen from Raise the Colours is nothing to do with national pride or with support for the England team during the World Cup. It’s unlawful behaviour, which has put people at risk and caused fear within our communities for almost a year.

We have a clear responsibility to keep people safe and ensure our public spaces are welcoming for everyone. That’s why we’ve taken this action and why today’s decision by the court provides clarity and protects our colleagues and communities.”