Social Welfare Lawyers in the Centre of Birmingham

Power To The People

Everyone had been waiting with trepidation for the Government’s response to the Travellers and Planning Consultation.  You can find examples of some of the wonderful consultation responses in our article “Re-Defining Travellers Out of Existence” on our website under: campaigns and consultations

After lobbying from Dr Angus Murdoch, a Planning Consultant who acts for Gypsies and Travellers, the Liberal Democrat MP, David Laws, studied all of the consultation responses and was very concerned about the points that were made in those responses.  Accordingly the Liberal Democrats blocked the attempt of Mr Pickles, the Secretary of State for Justice, to bring in changes to planning policies including the proposed change to the definition of “Gypsy” for the purposes of planning.  This is excellent news. Well done to Angus, David Laws, Lord Avebury (who facilitated this process) and all of those who put in consultation responses.  A report on this appeared in the Daily Telegraph and, interestingly, on the same page there was a report about thousands more homes being planned for the Green Belt.  You can read this at:- Daily Telegraph Report

Town-Wide Injunction

Harlow Council in combination with Essex County Council have obtained an injunction against Gypsies and Travellers covering 454 parcels of land:

Though TAT were contacted by two of the Defendants prior to the Order being made, unfortunately they were not eligible for legal aid and did not instruct us further.  TAT feel that such injunctions are highly challengeable and would be very interested in hearing from anyone affected by this injunction or any other such injunction.  Please telephone us on our Advice Line on 0121 685 8677.

Akerman – Livingstone – v – Aster Communities Limited

Akerman – Livingstone – v – Aster Communities Limited [2015] UKSC 15, 11 March 2015

The Supreme Court has overturned the decision of the Court of Appeal and thus concluded that disability discrimination defences to possession actions under the Equality Act 2010 do not have to face the same “seriously arguable” summary test as Article 8 defences to possession actions by local authorities.

Response to the Petition from the MoJ

We have now received a totally unhelpful response from the Ministry of Justice to the Petition – see attached.
Plus they manage to fail to mention the cases of R (Gudanaviciene & ors) -v- Secretary of State for Justice (which found the exceptional funding guidance to be unlawful) and R (Ben Hoare Bell & ors) -v- The Lord Chancellor which found the Civil Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regs, with regard to payment in legal aid cases for judicial reviews, to also be unlawful. Must have skipped their mind!  We have just chased up the other main parties about the Petition and we will let you know if and when we hear from them.


Total Attachments: 1

Response to the Petition from the MoJ (0 bytes)

Use Your Vote

After the last disastrous 5 years of the Coalition Government which has seen vast areas of law taken out of scope for Legal Aid, restrictions on the ability of Legal Aid firms to take judicial review actions and a 10% across the board cut in Civil Legal Aid fees, it is vital that supporters of Legal Aid and Access to Justice use their vote in the upcoming General Election.