28. As I indicated, Ms Bolton at the hearing on 15 May took the court through large parts of that evidence of which the above is a summary and to show the pattern of conduct both before and after the injunction. The witness statement of Inspector James Gallimore also details unauthorised encampments formed in the borough. By way of summary only, he explained that in the period between 21 June 2018 and the date of his statement, there were 59 encampments that were recorded. He records a higher number of encampments than Mr Williams as he covers a longer period and also some encampments that were dealt with only by the police and not the claimants. At paragraphs 11 to 189, Inspector Gallimore gave details of each encampment and any related occurrences. That evidence is dense, and Ms Bolton helpfully summarised it and provided themes with cross- references. It is not necessary to add to the length of this judgment by setting out those themes. The court is satisfied that the summary and the skeleton argument is an accurate and balanced summary of the evidence of both Mr Chris Williams and Inspector Gallimore. 29. If the injunction is not continued, the claimants apprehend that there will be an increase in the frequency and duration of encampments, at worst to levels that existed prior to the injunction or at least to a level that is much greater than that which has occurred during and in spite of the injunctions. The submission is that there is a strong probability that such encampments will continue to be formed and that harm will continue to be suffered.
30. I now refer to the evidence relating to the three preliminary questions that were identified above.
Preliminary question (1): the obligation to consider and provide lawful stopping places
31. The relevant guidance in the Wolverhampton case is at paragraphs 190 to 202. The first claimant has not adopted a formal, negotiated stopping policy, nor does the County of Hampshire have a transit site: see the second witness statement of Chris Williams at paragraph 94. It should be said that that is in distinction to the evidence in the Test Valley v Bowers case heard by Judge Dight, where there was a policy that had been adopted with the inference that travellers were aware of it, albeit that no one had asked the local
Epiq Europe Ltd, Lower Ground, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JE www.epiqglobal.com/en-gb/
249
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator