to date in the evidence. The longer the time has passed since the Wolverhampton case, the greater the opportunity to address these matters, the more that there is co-operation and consultation with people affected and the greater the opportunity to amend policies, the greater the scrutiny that can take place as to whether an injunction is still required and, to the extent that it is required, what would be a reasonable and proportionate continuation of any injunction. 63. In the course of the discussions with counsel, the nature of the draft order has been explained and the ways in which it has had greater definition, both of the forbidden activities and of the exceptions to them. There is a particular point that was discussed with Butcher J as to whether (b) and (c) were to be separate matters relating to the setting up of an encampment on any part of the land. Butcher J had expressed some concerns. In the course of the hearing with Ms Bolton, the court expressed a concern as to whether there was an unintended consequence of the drafting at present in relation to (b) and (c) and whether that needed to be redrafted so that the extent of the prohibitions and the extent of the exceptions were made clear. At the moment, it is possible on the current drafting of (b) that there could be a breach of the injunction in setting up an encampment which breached planning control. Even if it had been the case that there was a temporary toleration, that was clearly not intended by the claimants, and the claimants are going to consider the redrafting of (b) and (c). As indicated in respect of the review of the order provision, that is going to be altered in accordance with that to which I have referred.
Conclusion
64. Subject to these remarks, the claimants have demonstrated a compelling need for the protection of their civil rights. The court has applied the strictures of the Wolverhampton case considering the precautionary relief matters. The court is satisfied that (a) the claimants have exhausted all reasonable alternatives before seeking final relief, (b) there is no other realistic and proportionate alternative to final injunctive relief, (c) the statutory requirements for a power of arrest have been proven, and (d) the claimants have taken proportionate steps to control the encampments and depositing of waste. There is a real risk that unless restrained, the offending acts would continue. The injunction is
Epiq Europe Ltd, Lower Ground, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JE www.epiqglobal.com/en-gb/
264
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator