Judgment Approved by the court for handing down.
Double-click to enter the short title
17. He summarises the Claimant’s application as being a fear that without the Injunction there will be an increase in unauthorised encampments in the Injunction Area and also that “ the Council reasonably apprehends that, if the Injunction was not continued, and the injunction area were to lose its protection, encampments may migrate from neighbouring administrative areas (especially Reading), and once again start forming with an increased frequency in the injunction area.” This was firmed up in submissions to being a likelihood that such migration will take place. 18. Whilst the harm has been outlined above as detailed in Mr. Williams’s evidence, the Borough acknowledges in its Negotiated Stopping Policy and Agreement that the anti-social behaviour is not representative of the Gypsy and Traveller community generally and that to the extent that those individuals who engage in this activity identify as Gypsy or Traveller, they are a small and non-representative minority within those groups.
Relevant Legal Principles
Review or De Novo
19. The Claimants argued that the court should approach this case as a review and so the court needs only consider if there has been a material change in circumstances. They relied upon Wolverhampton at paragraph 225, which expressed that the temporal limitation and periodic review of newcomer injunctions: give [s] 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.
Draft 31 March 2025 12:22
Page 6
46
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator