Preliminary question (3): steps to control or prohibit unauthorised encampment by other measures and powers
37. At paragraphs 204 to 216 of the Wolverhampton judgment, the Supreme Court considered other measures and powers that might be used as an attempt to control and prohibit unauthorised encampments, if and to the extent that alternatives were available to an injunction, that might be relevant as to whether an injunction should be imposed. Those alternative measures and powers are still used outside of the injunction area. I shall refer to some of the powers that have been used. The first claimant has relied on the powers in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 ("CJPO 1994") section 77 to 78, which have proved an ineffective and inefficient way of controlling the formation of and enforcing against unauthorised encampments. Chris Williams in his second witness statement explained that in the period between April 2016 and January 2019, it had used its powers under section 77 on ten occasions with an order under section 78 being necessary on seven of those occasions, at a cost of £4,649. A problem in relation to those steps is that encampments will often wait to be served with section 77 directions and then move a short distance to a new site not affected by the section 77 directions. Further, the section 77 directions last for only three months and the penalty for non- compliance is simply a fine. The evidence is that an injunction provides a more cost- efficient resolution to the formation of unauthorised encampments compared to the use of sections 77 to 78. 38. Further, the first claimant has considered the use of bylaws and public space protection orders ("PSPOs") as a way of controlling and prohibiting unauthorised encampments. Mr Williams explained in his third witness statement at paragraphs 11 to 15 that the implementation of a PSPO or a bylaw is slow and cumbersome. It gave rise to questions as to whether they were lawful. They do not ordinarily compel an encampment to vacate the relevant land. The enforcement is by way of fixed penalty notices. It is in the evidence for the claimants more desirable than criminalising the travellers' way of life to have positive engagement and advice following the service of an injunction in order to deal with the problem. Whilst the injunction does have a power of arrest attached, that power is there as a last resort and is yet to be used.
Epiq Europe Ltd, Lower Ground, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JE www.epiqglobal.com/en-gb/
252
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator