Supreme Court: Councils Can Ban Gypsies and Travellers on Short-Term Basis

Gypsies and travellers arrive at the Appleby Horse Fair, an annual gathering in Appleby, Cumbria. (PA)

Local authorities can ban gypsies and travellers from their land, the Supreme Court has ruled.

The court ruling comes after a series of appeals to decisions, which would prevent travellers from settling on public land such as parks, fields and roadside verges.

Prohibitory newcomer injunctions can be granted on a short-term, interim basis as a matter of principle, the announcement said.

The latest ruling by the Supreme Court follows a number of legal battles, which set off when a number of injunctions against “persons unknown” were obtained by councils between 2015 and 2020.

The “persons unknown” reference was used because the gypsies and travellers, who may wish to camp on a particular site, could not generally be identified in advance.

The Supreme Court said that at the time the injunctions were granted, the interests of Gypsies and Travellers were not represented at hearings. The bans were also issued before “these unknown persons” camped, or threatened to camp, on the local authority land without permission, or to commit any other relevant unlawful activity.

Related Stories

Police Investigate Welsh Secretary Over ‘Hostile’ Gypsy Leaflet

8/3/2023

Irish Travellers: One Deadline Passes, Another is Set

9/6/2011

A number of appeals ensued, including that by London Gypsies and Travellers (LGT), Friends Families and Travellers (FFT) and the Derbyshire Gypsy Liaison Group.

Meanwhile, the injunctions initially obtained by councils were coming to an end. From around mid-2020, local authorities made applications to extend the ban on newcomers.

Following a review hearing, the judge concluded that newcomer injunctions could only be issued on a short-term basis.

The court discharged the injunctions obtained by local authorities, including the Wolverhampton City Council, Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council, Thurrock Council and several London borough councils.

The court’s further guidance added that traveller injunctions was an “exceptional remedy” and is to be used as a “proportionate response to the unlawful activity to which it is directed.”

“Further we consider that an injunction which extends borough-wide is likely to leave the gypsy and traveller communities with little or no room for manoeuvre…” the court said.

Nomadic Communities

As of July 2023, there are 25,220 traveller caravans in England. This compares to 20,834 caravans in 2013, an increase of 21 percent.

The number of caravans on unauthorised sites (without planning permission) in July added up to 3,531. The count of traveller caravans was suspended in July 2020 and January 2021, due to national lockdowns.

Romany gypsies and Irish travellers are covered by the protected characteristic of race under the 2010 Equality Act and councils have a duty to “actively seek to eliminate unlawful discrimination, advance equality of opportunity and promote good race relations.”

In response to the Supreme Court’s decision, the FFT head of policy and Public Affairs at Friends, Families and Travellers, Abbie Kirkby, said about the use of injunctions: “This is just one of the very many prohibitive approaches and eviction powers used to target Travellers and it’s key that the Supreme Court recognises the significance of the lack of site provision and the need for ”compelling justification’ for such an order to be sought and granted by the Court. We see this as a shot across the bows to local authorities—that their hostile approaches to traveller communities will not go unchecked.”

Local authorities need to understand the “needs of nomadic communities,” said the LGT chief executive officer, Debby Kennett.

He welcomed the Supreme Court’s recognition of the “lack of sites and stopping places for gypsies and travellers.”

“The use of wide injunctions offers no real solutions,” Mr. Kennet said.

One of the respondents in the case, the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham, had in the past issued a statement on the use of injunctions.

“Our main priority is making sure that we protect residents and their businesses. The injunction gives us the opportunity to make the borough a safer, cleaner place. We are not prepared for illegal encampments to be set up in this borough, and we will act quickly to ensure they are moved on,” a councillor said back in 2018.

Five years later, the Supreme Court said that local authorities applying for newcomer injunctions must demonstrate that there “is a compelling need to protect civil rights or enforce public law that is not adequately met by any other remedies.”