[arista]

[Councils can ban travellers from their land,
the Supreme Court has ruled.
Local authorities can take out court injunctions
barring travellers from sites across their
boroughs before they arrive,
even if they cannot identify who they
are in advance,
five judges ruled on Wednesday.

It follows a series of legal battles by
councils to prevent travellers from
settling on public land such as parks,
fields and roadside verges.
There are estimated to be 25,000 traveller caravans
in the UK, accounting for a quarter
of the traveller population,
most of which are on private or
local council sites.

The court supported a group
of 38 local councils, including 16 London boroughs,
that had imposed “no-go zones” for travellers.
Councils have used injunctions to
disperse travellers by preventing them
from moving on to fresh sites within
the same area.
In Harlow, for example, the councils banned
travellers from 454 “parcels of land” covering
the entire town, while three councils
in Hampshire took out an injunction banning
unauthorised encampments for five years.

However, after reviewing the injunctions
in May 2021, Mr Justice Nicklin ruled that
the orders could only apply to people
identified by local authorities – thereby making
it nearly impossible for them to ban travellers
who were new to the area.

Twelve local authorities successfully
challenged this ruling at the Court of Appeal,
which found the court had the power
to grant the so-called “newcomer” injunctions.
In a ruling on Wednesday, the five
Supreme Court justices, led by Lord Reed,
upheld the appeal court’s ruling.

They said: “The court has jurisdiction,
in the sense of power, to grant an
injunction against ‘newcomers’,
that is persons who at the time of the grant
of the injunction are neither defendants
nor identifiable, and who are described
in the order only as persons unknown.
The injunction may be granted on an interim
or final basis, necessarily on an application
without notice.”]


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...e-court-rules/