Wendy Smith v Secretary of State for the Home Department, FFT and Liberty intervening [2024] EWHC 1137 (Admin)
In this groundbreaking case the High Court held that provisions in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 introduced by the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act (‘PCSCA’) 2022 were incompatible with Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (‘ECHR’) (the prohibition on discrimination) read with Article 8 ECHR (the right to private life), as they amount to unjustified discrimination against Gypsies and Travellers. The High Court took the significant and unusual step of issuing a declaration of incompatibility under Section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which means that Parliament will have to review those provisions to ensure their compatibility with the ECHR. The government has now tabled amendments to the legislation which will resolve the incompatibility identified by the Judge.
Wolverhampton City Council v London Gypsies and Travellers and others [2023] UKSC 47
Members of the Team represented the Gypsy and Traveller NGO appellants in a case in the Supreme Court concerning whether final injunctions can be made against unidentified persons unknown, having represented the NGOs in the lower courts. The Supreme Court held that injunctions against unidentified and unidentifiable persons could be granted but it emphasised the exceptional nature of the remedy and the significant substantive and procedural safeguards that should be in place before any such relief is sought and granted.
R (on the application of SO) v Thanet DC [2023] EWCA Civ 298; [2023] 1 WLR 3462: Successful judicial review in Court of Appeal concerning a novel point of law concerning the rights of Gypsies & Travellers given permission to camp on local authority land and challenging the use of s 77 Criminal Justice Act 1994 to evict prior to a lawful notice of withdrawal of permission to occupy land.
R (on the application of SO) v Thanet DC (Costs) [2023] EWCA Civ 526: Seminal reported costs decision arising identifying the approach to determination of liability and interim costs orders in successful Court of Appeal cases, setting aside lower court’s judgment.
Dassy Jones v (1) Welsh Ministers; (2) Rhondda Cynon Taff County BC (Administrative Court (Planning (Wales)) CO/2809/2023: Successful statutory appeal where the rights of the Traveller’s children were not lawfully balanced against highway safety issues in planning enforcement proceedings. Led to a grant of planning permission on remission.
Lisa Smith v SSHCLG (with the EHRC, LGT, FFT, NFGLG and STAG intervening) (2022) EWCA Civ 1391, 31 October 2022
This landmark case concerned the lawfulness of the definition of ‘gypsies and travellers’ in Planning policy for traveller sites (2015) – the complaint being that definition has a particularly detrimental effect on Gypsies and Travellers who are elderly or disabled and their ability to secure planning permission for caravan sites. The issue arose in the context of a statutory challenge brought under section 288 of the TCPA 1990 against a decision by an inspector to refuse planning permission for use of land as a caravan site for a Romani Gypsy family.
At first instance Pepperall J. dismissed the challenge ([2021] EWHC 1650 (Admin)). Ms Smith appealed and the Court of Appeal reversed the Judge’s decision and held that the planning policy definition of ‘gypsies and travellers’ did not pursue a legitimate aim and was not proportionate and that it unlawfully discriminated against elderly and disabled Gypsies and Travellers, who were more likely to have to stop travelling on the grounds of ill-health or old age. Having reached that conclusion the Court of Appeal quashed the planning inspector’s appeal decision and remitted the appeal for reconsideration. In December 2023 the government issued a revised version of Planning policy for traveller sites with a revised definition of the term ‘gypsies and travellers’ which included those who had ceased travelling permanently on grounds of old age and ill health.
Brentwood Borough Council v Paul Buckley and others including Charlie Ward (by his litigation Friend Lucy Ward) QB 2021 -002871 High Court 28 June 2024 before HHJ Wood KC: Successful challenge to enforcement of a planning injunction leading to grant of planning permission.
London Borough of Bromley v Persons Unknown, London Gypsies and Travellers and others (2020) EWCA Civ 120
Over the last few years there has been a growing trend for local authorities to apply to the court for ‘wide injunctions’ to prohibit Gypsies and Travellers from camping on public land in their areas. In one such case, the London Borough of Bromley’s application was opposed by a charity called London Gypsies Travellers (LGT). Marc Willers KC was instructed, together with Tessa Buchanan to represent LGT (substantially pro bono) and they persuaded the judge in the High Court, Mulcahy QC, that the application should be refused.
Bromley’s appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal. Importantly, when giving judgment the Court of Appeal deprecated the use of ‘wide injunctions’ save in the most exceptional circumstances. Thus Coulson LJ said:
‘109. Finally, it must be recognised that the cases referred to above make plain that the Gypsy and Traveller community have an enshrined freedom not to stay in one place but to move from one place to another. An injunction which prevents them from stopping at all in a defined part of the UK comprises a potential breach of both the Convention and the Equality Act, and in future should only be sought when, having taken all the steps noted above, a local authority reaches the considered view that there is no other solution to the particular problems that have arisen or are imminently likely to arise.’
The County of Herefordshire DC v Zachary Biddle & D Mellings K00WR364; The County of Herefordshire DC v Valerie Butler Claim No:K00WR363: Worcester County Court five-day trial before HHJ Salmon. Complex mobile homes act possession proceedings raising disability issues. Led to mid-trial settlement.
Moore and Coates v SSCLG and EHRC [2015] EWHC 44 (Admin)
In this case Gilbart J found that Eric Pickles MP, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, had unlawfully discriminated against Romani Gypsies/Irish Travellers by recovering all Gypsy/Traveller caravan site planning appeals for his own determination in breach of the Equality Act 2010 and Articles 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention). Stephen Cottle represented the successful claimants.
Traveller Movement v J D Wetherspoon PLC (2015) Central London County Court, 18th May 2015, HHJ Hand QC
In this landmark discrimination claim the Court held that a pub, which had refused entry to Irish Travellers and Romani Gypsies and their companions following an annual conference organised by the Traveller Movement, had committed direct race discrimination because the pub landlord made stereotypical assumptions that Irish Travellers and Romany Gypsies were likely to cause disorder. The Court also held that the Travellers’ and Gypsies’ companions also succeeded in their claims for associative direct discrimination.
R (Mary Michelle Sheridan and Others) v Basildon BC [2011] EWHC 2938 (Admin)
The Irish Traveller residents of Dale Farm were unsuccessful in their judicial review challenge against the local authority’s decision to take direct action to evict them from their plots on the site. The case was heard at first instance by Ouseley J. Lord Justice Sullivan who refused a renewed application for permission made to the Court of Appeal.
Secretary of State for Environment Food and Rural Affairs v Meier and others [2009] UKSC 11
Case concerning a claim for a wide possession order and supporting injunction brought against New Travellers encamped on woodland managed by the Forestry Commission. The Supreme Court held that an injunction, which restrained the Travellers from camping on the land they occupied and other parcels of land in the area, could stand but a wide possession order which covered land it owned, but not subject to unauthorised occupation when the order was made, should be discharged. In so doing, the Supreme Court also overturned Court of Appeal’s decision in this case and its decision in Drury v Secretary of State for the Environment [2004] EWCA Civ 200.
Leeds City Council v Price [2006] UKHL 10
House of Lords concluded that the eviction of Romani Gypsies & Irish Travellers from public land did not breach their human rights. Held that in a case with an inconsistency between a House of Lords judgment and ECtHR judgment, domestic courts were bound to follow House of Lords’ decision.
South Bucks DC v Porter (No.2) [2004] 1 WLR 1953
Second House of Lords case concerning the Porter family. Their Lordships upheld the decision to grant family planning permission and gave guidance to planning inspectors on the extent to which they needed to give reasons for their decisions.
R (Margaret Price) v Carmarthenshire CC [2003] EWHC 42 Admin
Court quashed a decision to evict an Irish Traveller from her land. She had made a homelessness application and the council had failed to consider whether she had a cultural aversion to bricks and mortar and, if so, whether there was any other suitable accommodation.
South Bucks DC v Porter (No.1) [2003] 2 AC 558
House of Lords decision that a court determining an application for an injunction to stop Romani Gypsies & Travellers living in caravans on their land, without planning permission, should take account of a variety of considerations, including personal circumstances and human rights of the defendants.
Clarke v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and Regions [2002] JPL 552
Court of Appeal held that when a Romani Gypsy sought planning permission for a caravan site and had a cultural aversion to bricks and mortar, it could breach his human rights to take account of an offer of conventional housing made to him.
Coster v United Kingdom [2001] 33 EHRR 20
One of four Gypsy cases heard together with Chapman v UK. ECtHR decided planning enforcement action did not breach human rights of Romani Gypsy families concerned, but that the State had a positive obligation to facilitate the Gypsy way of life.
R v Lincolnshire CC ex parte Atkinson (1995) 8 Admin LR 529
Concerned need for local authorities to take account of considerations of common humanity and carry out welfare enquiries before deciding to evict Romani Gypsies and Travellers from their land.
