In the recent case of London Borough of Havering v Stokes & others, the High Court granted a final injunction against persons involved in unauthorised encampments and engaging in anti-social activities.
This case concerns the efforts of Havering Borough Council (HBC), the Claimant, to tackle the persistent issues arising from unauthorised traveller encampments, in particular those associated with anti-social activities such as commercial fly-tipping, forced property entry, and aggressive behaviour.
An interim injunction was granted on 12 September 2019 and at the final hearing, HBC sought the following orders:
- A borough-wide injunction against those individuals previously engaged in unauthorised encampments. The injunction would also prohibit the unlawful deposit of waste;
- A site-specific injunction against persons unknown restricting the set-up of unauthorised encampments on the 306 identified sites, consisting of schools, parks, and other vulnerable locations. Notice of the injunction would be posted at these sites;
- The injunction would be in place until 2025, with a provision to vary or discharge the order within 72 hours, to ensure no disproportionate interference with the rights of the traveller community; and
- That the order should bear a power of arrest under section 27 of the Police and Justice Act 2006.
As part of the further evidence provided to the Court at the final hearing, HBC were able to demonstrate the significant and imminent risk that unlawful encampments pose in terms of causing harm, including trespass and private nuisance to neighbouring properties. As a result, the High Court granted a final precautionary injunction, on almost all of the terms proposed by HBC, with the order clearly distinguishing between the restrictions on persons unknown, named defendants who are subject to a borough-wide injunction and named defendants subject to injunctions in relation to identified sites. The High Court declined to add a power of arrest to most cases , having considered that it not necessary or proportionate. However, a power of arrest was deemed appropriate for two defendants, Brian and Patrick Stokes, who were involved in particularly serious incidents, including forcible entry, threats, and substantial property damage. The court was in particular concerned with the effect of an injunction on the private and family life rights of the Traveller and Gypsy community whose identity was unknown, as well as considering what approach to take in relation to named persons.
The injunction is in force until October 2025, and those affected by the order can apply for it to be varied or discharged.
The case highlights how the Court ensures that injunctions are fair and proportionate, balancing the public interest in preventing harm with the rights of individuals who may be affected by the injunction.
