Travellers’ camp on Forestry Commission land — Warrant for eviction — Whether defendant obliged to carry out welfare enquiries before proceeding with eviction — Whether sufficient to request local authorities to carry out such enquiries — Claim dismissed
The defendant obtained a possession order requiring “persons unknown”, which included the claimant traveller and others, to leave Forestry Commission land upon which they camped. She subsequently contacted two local authorities asking them to make enquiries as to the welfare status of the group, referring to the occupants’ rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and to the humanitarian obligations set out in Circular 18/94. One authority failed to respond, and the other declined to make any enquiries.
The defendant obtained a warrant for eviction, of which the claimant and others were given notice. The claimant’s solicitor wrote to the defendant, pointing out that no welfare enquiries had been carried out. In response, the defendant stated that she had discharged her obligations, but that if the claimant had any particular welfare needs that would justify his not being evicted, she would consider his position sympathetically. She invited the claimant’s solicitor to identify any such needs.
The claimant brought a judicial review claim, contending that the defendant had acted unlawfully in proceeding with the eviction. The claimant submitted that: (i) the defendant’s power to manage forestry land, under section 3 of the Forestry Act 1967, encompassed a power to provide temporary sites for travellers, and that she had erred in law in failing to consider provision for travellers in woodland planning and strategy in the erroneous belief that she had no power to do so; and (ii) the defendant should have inquired as to the travellers’ welfare prior to evicting them, pursuant to government’s 2004 guidance on managing unauthorised camping. The defendant maintained that although she was obliged to take account of welfare considerations before deciding whether to evict, she was not under a positive duty to carry out such enquiries.
Held: The claim was dismissed.
1. The power of management under section 3 could be exercised only in the discharge of the defendant’s functions under section 1(2), namely the general duty of promoting the interests of forestry. This general duty could not sensibly be construed as embracing the provision of residential sites for travellers. It followed that the defendant had no power to provide residential sites for travellers on land that was placed at her disposal.
2. The defendant had neither the expertise nor the resources to carry out welfare enquiries. Her position could not be equated with that of local authorities, since she had no statutory duties in respect of welfare: R v Lincolnshire County Council, ex parte Atkinson (1996) 8 Admin LR 529 distinguished. The 2004 guidance envisaged that the extent and detail of appropriate enquiries into welfare needs was more applicable to local authorities, which had the appropriate skills and resources, than to bodies such as the defendant. The defendant’s letters to the local authorities, by which she sought their assistance, were the obvious and appropriate means by which she could acquaint herself of any material welfare considerations. Even in the light of the two local authorities’ respective failure to respond and negative response, the defendant had not acted unreasonably in not embarking upon further enquiries of her own, or in instructing others to make such enquiries on her behalf. She had alerted the appropriate authorities to the fact that there might be people to whom they owed statutory duties., In those circumstances, there was no reason to doubt that if any such duties arose upon the eviction of the travellers, they would be discharged by the relevant authority. Moreover, the defendant had discharged her duty to keep the situation under review, since she would have given fresh consideration to the enforcement of the possession order had those acting for the claimant brought any specific welfare considerations to her attention.
Stephen Knafler (instructed by Community Law Partnership, of Birmingham) appeared for the claimant; Jonathan Karas (instructed by the legal department of the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) appeared for the defendant.
Sally Dobson, barrister
