Readers will find our report on Lisa Smith’s great victory in the Court of Appeal immediately below this piece.

The Secretary of State for Levelling Up applied for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal and was refused. He has now confirmed that he will not be seeking to take the appeal any further.

This means that the unlawful and discriminatory definition of Gypsy/Traveller (which excluded those Gypsies and Travellers who had stopped travelling permanently because of age or ill health) contained in Planning policy for traveller sites (2015) must go and must be replaced with a new definition.

Campaigners and lawyers have been fighting this awful definition since it was brought into force and this is a great victory for Gypsy and Traveller rights.

While we await further developments, well done to Lisa Smith’s legal team : Keith Coughtrie of Deighton Pierce Glynn and Marc Willers KC and Tessa Buchanan of Garden Court Chambers.

CLP represented four Gypsy and Traveller organisations who intervened at both the high court and Court of Appeal. They produced evidence of the disastrous effects of the 2015 definition which evidence was clearly influential on the Court of Appeal , so well done as well to: London Gypsies and Travellers; Friends, Families and Travellers; Derbyshire Gypsy Liaison Group; and Southwark Travellers Action Group. Finally well done to their barristerial team: David Wolfe KC of Matrix Chambers; Owen Greenhall of Garden Court; and Tim Jones of No 5 Chambers.

We will, of course, keep readers closely informed of further developments.

As regular readers will know, the definition of Gypsies and Travellers contained in Planning policy for traveller sites (PPTS) excluded those who have permanently stopped travelling for work due to a disability, long term health condition or age. Lisa Smith had, since 2011, rented pitches on a private site owned by a Mr Willshore with temporary planning permission. Two of Ms Smith’s adult sons are severely disabled and, as a result, the family had had to permanently stop their nomadic way of life. Mr Willshore later applied for permanent planning permission and this was refused. On appeal to a Planning Inspector, the Planning Inspector decided that the family were not within the new definition in PPTS 2015. Ms Smith appealed to the High Court but her appeal was refused. She appealed further to the Court of Appeal.

We are delighted to inform our readers that the application for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court by three leading Traveller organisations in this matter concerning wide injunctions has been successful. As ordered by the Supreme Court, you will find the attachments below:-

The application for permission to appeal;
The ancillary procedural applications including the application for alternative service;
The decision to grant permission.

Please see here the press release on the matter from FFT:- https://www.gypsy-traveller.org/news/wide-injunctions-to-be-challenged-in-supreme-court/

If you have any queries please do not hesitate to telephone Chris Johnson on our switchboard number namely 0121 685 8595. Alternatively, you can e-mail us at

Attachments

Total Attachments: 3

__Procedural applications - final (47 KB) Permission Decision (167 KB) __Application for PTA (62 KB)

The Royal Borough of Greenwich made an application seeking an injunction against Traveller encampments on 27 parcels of land. London Gypsies and Travellers (LGT) intervened in this matter and were represented by Chris Johnson of CLP. The final hearing took place in the King’s Bench Division in the Royal Courts of Justice in London on 18 October. HHJ Cotter was not satisfied that the evidence provided by the council justified the grant of such a wide injunction. After a short adjournment the barrister for the council, Steven Woolf (who has been involved in other cases for local authorities seeking wide injunctions), asked that the matter should be adjourned generally which the judge agreed to. LGT have asked the council to:

1. Re-consider whether they really need an injunction at all ( which LGT argue they do not)
2. Re-consider whether transit provision is required
3. Create a proper negotiated stopping agreement

Watch this space!