If you go down to the woods today….
Court out: the Supreme Court has ruled that the Forestry Commission was right to have used an injunction againts a group of Travellers in Dorset
Britain’s new Supreme Court has made a new ruling that may have huge significance for Britain’s remaining nomadic Gypsies and Travellers. In only the 11th judgement since the court was established earlier this year, 5 Supreme Court Justices have ruled that a possession order used against Gypsies and Travellers covering wide areas of publicly owned Forestry Commission land was wrong, but that injunctions which could result in their imprisonment and loss of assets were perfectly legal.
The justices did recognise that it was unlikely that courts would send vulnerable Gypsies and Travellers to prison or order that their assets be seized, but the Justices considered that the threat of such draconian action would have a deterrent effect on Gypsies and Travellers.
The judgement is the latest legal ruling affecting the rights or Gypsies and Travellers and was taken to the Supreme Court by barristers Richard Drabble QC and Marc Willers, after they were instructed by the Community Law Partnership which specialises in representing Gypsies and Travellers.
The case concerned whether the Forestry Commission was right to have used a wide ranging possession order covering much of its land in Dorset against a group of new Travellers. The case has also settled whether injunctions banning Gypsies and Travellers from a land owner’s property can now be used.
The good news for nomadic Gypsies and Travellers is that the Supreme Court has found that the use of a possession order preventing the Dorset Travellers from going on Forestry Commission land they may have camped on was wrong. The bad news is that they have ruled that an injunction used for the same purpose was perfectly OK. The judgement is likely to have a big effect on the way landowners attempt to stop Gypsies and Travellers camping on land in the future.
Marc Willers, the barrister representing the Travellers at the Supreme Court says:
“The Supreme Court expressed the view that the remedy of a quia timet injunction (an injunction to prevent something happening that has not yet happened) could be sought in circumstances where there was a risk that a Traveller would move from one unauthorised encampment on land owned by a public body to another parcel of land in that public body's ownership. There is a real concern that local authorities and public bodies will be encouraged by this judgment to pursue applications for quia timet injunctions.”
Willers added, however, that such injunctions would prove difficult for public bodies to obtain, and would be strenuously defended on human rights grounds.
For further details on the judgement and it’s implications, read Marc Willers and Chris Johnson’s new blog “Supreme Court serves up a ‘dog’s dinner’ in the Blog and Comment section of www.travellerstimes.org.uk