Supreme Court rules local authorities can be granted 'newcomer injunctions' to prevent illegal traveller encampments

The Supreme Court has ruled that local authorities can be granted injunctions to prevent new travellers from camping on their land.

The ruling, made on 29 November, backs an earlier decision by the Court of Appeal granting courts the power to hand out ‘newcomer injunctions’ after 38 councils – including Rochdale – petitioned the High Court to take action against unauthorised encampments by travellers.

Travellers are protected from discrimination by the Race Relations Act 1976 and the Human Rights Act 1998. The government has previously said that when they ‘are not causing a problem, the site may be tolerated’.

Travellers have been oft sighted in the borough, often visiting the same locations annually including Cronkeyshaw Common, Kingsway, and Tesco and Dunelm car parks.

Rochdale Borough Council was granted an interim injunction in 2018 – the first of its kind in Greater Manchester – preventing unauthorised traveller encampments.
 

Read more: Council attempts to ban illegal traveller sitesPublished: 13 February 2018

Prior preventative measures taken by the council included digging ‘trenches’ on Cronkeyshaw Common to try and dissuade illegal encampment.
 

Read more: Trenches dug at Cronkeyshaw Common to deter travellersPublished: 02 September 2015

Authorised spaces have been provided in the borough: in addition to the permanent site at Roch Vale Caravan Park, the council set up a temporary site for travellers in March 2017 on Belfield Road, near The Croft Shifa Health Centre.

At the time, the council said there had been 133 unauthorised encampments across the borough in the past three years and that it had dealt with “numerous complaints” from residents and businesses about noise, antisocial behaviour, violence, ‘commercial scale’ fly-tipping and even defection on land accessed by the public.

Between 2015 and 2020, 38 different local authorities, obtained injunctions designed to prevent travellers from camping on local authority land without permission.
 

Read more: Council's interim injunction on illegal traveller encampments listed for High Court hearingPublished: 09 May 2022

The local authorities relied on a range of statutory provisions, including section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 which enables the court to grant an injunction to restrain an actual or anticipated breach of planning control. Some of the local authorities also relied on common law causes of action, such as trespass.

From around mid-2020, the 38 local authorities made applications to extend or vary injunctions which were coming to an end. After a hearing in one of these cases, the High Court judge decided that there was a need to review all newcomer injunctions affecting travellers and they were given permission to intervene to represent their interests.

The judge concluded the court “did not have the power to grant newcomer injunctions, except on a short-term, interim basis. He therefore made a series of orders discharging the newcomer injunctions obtained by the local authorities.”

However, the Court of Appeal held that the court had the power to grant newcomer injunctions, and allowed the local authorities’ appeal.

The travellers then appealed to the Supreme Court, where their appeal was unanimously dismissed.

The Supreme Court said newcomer injunctions should only be exercised where ‘there is a compelling need to protect civil rights or to enforce public law that is not adequately met by any other available remedies,’ adding they should only be made ‘subject to procedural safeguards designed to protect newcomers’ rights’.

It also said newcomer injunctions are “a valuable and proportionate remedy in appropriate cases.”

Procedural safeguards must be built into both the application and the court order, and the application should be “advertised widely” so those affected can make representations. Once granted, it must be displayed prominently at the affected site.

Local authorities will also be obliged to comply with a strict duty requiring them to inform the court of any matter raised by a newcomer opposing the order.

Finally, newcomer injunctions should be limited so they ‘do not apply for a disproportionately long time period or to a disproportionately wide geographical area’ and the court must be satisfied granting such an injunction is “just and convenient.”

A spokesperson for Rochdale Borough Council confirmed the local authority is “aware of the Supreme Court ruling and has noted it.”