Gypsies — Local authority commencing possession proceedings — Occupants claiming to be “gypsies” — Application by occupants for judicial review of council decision to seek possession — High Court holding that authorities entitled to decide applicants were not gypsies — Judgment for local authorities — Applications for review dismissed
In these three cases the local authorities decided to commence proceedings pursuant to Ord 24 of the County Court Rules for possession of their land occupied by the respective applicants and others who claimed to be gypsies within the meaning of the Caravan Sites Act 1968. In the Warwickshire case the land concerned was owned by the council at Offchurch Railway Cuttings. In the Gloucestershire case the land was a redundant part of the old A429, which formed a cul-de-sac as a result of subsequent road improvements, but which was still owned by the council as highway authority. The South Hams case was distinguishable from the other two in so far as the proceedings were instituted by the district council rather than by the county council because the district council was the owner of the relevant land.
The applicants applied for judicial review of the decision to seek possession of the land they occupied. They argued that the local authorities were in breach of their duty to provide accommodation for gypsies under section 6 of the 1968 Act and that they had misdirected themselves in deciding that the applicants were not gypsies within meaning of the Act.
Held The applications were refused.
1. The definition of gypsy in the 1968 Act was capable of embracing persons other than the traditional gypsies so long as they could be said to have a nomadic habit of life. The word “nomadic” presupposed a type of person who moved from place to place with a purpose in mind. That purpose was a necessary and characteristic part of the life of a nomad in the sense of the original derivation of that word: see Berkshire County Council v Bird unreported September 26 1986, per Leggatt J.
2. In determining whether a person had acquired a nomadic lifestyle, a local authority could properly take into account the characteristics of a traditional gypsy because there was a likelihood that a person with those characteristics would have a nomadic habit of life.
3. The local authorities were under a general duty to provide adequate accommodation for gypsies residing in their areas.
4. It would not be right for the court to decide itself whether the applicant and others on the sites were gypsies. That was a decision for the relevant local authority. The correct approach was for the court to review the way in which the authorities had reached their decisions and to decide whether the decisions were reasonable.
5. Applying the definition of “gypsy” in the 1968 Act and having regard to the question of gypsy status, on the evidence, it could not be said that the local authorities had misdirected themselves in law in deciding that the applicants were not gypsies. Having validly reached the conclusion that the applicants were not gypsies and in the absence of exceptional circumstances, it was not appropriate to grant any relief arising from the finding that the local authorities were in breach of their general duty.
David Watkinson (instructed by Thorpes, of Hereford; Bobbetts Mackan, of Bristol; and, Harts, of Leicester) appeared for the applicants; Timothy Straker (instructed by Sharpe Pritchard, London agents for the councils) appeared for the councils.
