Approved Judgment
research for and then present to the court everything that might have been said by the targeted newcomers against the grant of injunctive relief. iv. The injunctions are constrained by both territorial and temporal limitations so as to ensure, as far as practicable, that they neither outflank nor outlast the compelling circumstances relied upon. v. It is, on the particular facts, just and convenient that such an injunction be granted. It might well not for example be just to grant an injunction restraining Travellers from using some sites as short-term transit camps if the applicant local authority has failed to exercise its power or, as the case may be, discharge its duty to provide authorised sites for that purpose within its boundaries. At [225] the court said One of the more controversial aspects of many of the injunctions granted hitherto has been their duration and geographical scope. These have been subjected to serious criticism, at least some of which we consider to be justified. We have considerable doubt as to whether it could ever be justifiable to grant a Gypsy or Traveller injunction which is directed to persons unknown, including newcomers, and extends over the whole of a borough or for significantly more than a year. It is to be remembered that this is an exceptional remedy, and it must be a proportionate response to the unlawful activity to which it is directed. Further, we consider that an injunction which extends borough-wide is likely to leave the Gypsy and Traveller communities with little or no room for manoeuvre, just as Coulson LJ warned might well be the case …. Similarly, injunctions of this kind must be reviewed periodically (as Sir Geoffrey Vos MR explained in these appeals at paras 89 and 108) and in our view ought to come to an end (subject to any order of the judge), by effluxion of time in all cases after no more than a year unless an application is made for their renewal. This will give all parties an opportunity to make full and complete disclosure to the court, supported by appropriate evidence, as to how effective the order has been; whether any reasons or grounds for its discharge have emerged; whether there is any proper justification for its continuance; and whether and on what basis a further order ought to be made.
41.
(iii) The test to be applied to renewed applications 42. An issue has arisen, in some recent cases at first instance level, as to the test that should be applied when applications are made to renew injunctions against persons unknown. 43. In Basingstoke v Loveridge , [2024] EWHC 1828 (KB) Freedman J considered the purpose of the review hearing. He said at [55]: the continuation of the injunction is something that has to be constrained and checked. It is for that reason that there are the constraints in respect of territorial land temporal limitations. There is a danger in a matter like this that the reaction to the Supreme Court case would be to be involved in tick-boxing so that the case would then be reviewed every year and then continued at the end of the year subject to the tick-boxing.
34
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator