Council wins court ban on illegal encampments
Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council, in Hampshire, was granted a one-year renewal of a High Court injunction.
Previous bans have greatly reduced unlawful encampments in the area, while neighbouring boroughs without injunctions have seen an increase, the court was told.
However, Kirsty Brimelow KC, sitting as a deputy judge, said the borough was not meeting the needs of Gypsies and travellers and should reconsider a decision not to provide them with a transit site.
In her written judgement, Ms Brimelow said: "A transit site would satisfy anxiety of Gypsies and travellers that they might be moved from whenever they stop in the borough."
The injunction, lasting until 3 April 2026, was granted against "persons unknown", who were not represented in court.
It covers the town of Basingstoke, as well as rural areas around Bramley, Silchester and Tadley Common.
Previous injunctions in Basingstoke and also in Test Valley have deterred encampments and gave police enhanced powers of arrest, the court was told.
However, in neighbouring areas without injunctions, the problem had escalated, the judge heard.
Reading in Berkshire currently had 59 unauthorised encampments, police told the court.
Giving evidence, Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council said it feared the return of previous problems involving untreated human faeces in fields, intimidation of residents, noise and financial harm.
It acknowledged that anti-social behaviour was not representative of the Gypsy and traveller community.
The authority said it was updating its local plan, calling for new sites.
In September 2024, the borough approved a "negotiated stopping policy", tolerating encampments on council-owned land on a case-by-case basis.
Ms Brimelow renewed the injunction, covering 10% of the borough where encampments would be "especially harmful".
You can follow BBC Hampshire & Isle of Wight on Facebook, X (Twitter), or Instagram.
HM Courts and Tribunals Service
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
2 hours ago
- Fox News
Judge who fined Trump $500 million gets the books thrown at him
In New York, a court revealed that a leading citizen had cooked the books by inflating questionable figures without any support in reality. Moreover, his wild overvaluation was widely viewed as motivated by his self-aggrandizement. The final reported figures are so absurdly inflated that they were rejected in their entirety. In the end, he was off by over half a billion dollars. That man is Judge Arthur Engoron. After a New York appellate court unanimously threw out Engoron's absurd half-a-billion-dollar judgment and interest against President Donald Trump, the irony was crushing. It was Engoron who seemed, as he characterized Trump witnesses, as having "simply denied reality." It made his notorious reliance on an assessment of Mar-a-Lago as worth between $18 million and $27.6 million seem like good accounting. In the end, he could not get a single judge to preserve a single dollar of that fine. For some of us who covered that trial, the most vivid image of Engoron came at the start. He indicated that he did not want cameras in the courtroom, but when the networks showed up, Engoron took off his glasses and seemed to pose for the cameras. It was a "Sunset Boulevard" moment. We only need Gloria Swanson looking into the camera to speak to "those wonderful people out there in the dark!" and announcing "all right, [Ms. James], I'm ready for my close-up." The close-up was not a good idea, and, on appeal, it was perfectly disastrous. The court found little legal or factual basis for his fine. The purported witnesses not only did not lose a dime, but they testified that they made money on the loans and wanted new loans with the Trump administration. That did not move Engoron. From the start, he was speaking to those "wonderful people out there." You did not have to go far. In both the civil and criminal trials of Trump in New York, there was a carnival atmosphere in the street outside the courthouse. It was really not derangement as much as delirium. Democrat New York Attorney General Letitia James had injected lawfare directly into the veins of New Yorkers. Pledging in her campaign to bag Trump (without bothering to name any crime or violation), James was elected based on her recreational rather than legal appeal. Yet, James could not have succeeded if she had not had a judge willing to ignore reality and cook the books on the fines. She needed a partner in lawfare. She needed Engoron. Even for some anti-Trump commentators, the judgment was impossible to defend and some acknowledged that they had never seen any case like this one brought in New York. Judge David Friedman gave Engoron a close-up that would have made Swanson wince. He detailed how the underlying law "has never been used in the way it is being used in this case – namely, to attack successful, private, commercial transactions, negotiated at arm's length between highly sophisticated parties fully capable of monitoring and defending their own interests." He accused Engoron of participating in an effort clearly directed by James at "ending with the derailment of President Trump's political career and the destruction of his real estate business." Other judges said that Engoron's fine was so off base and engorged that it was an unconstitutional order under the Eighth Amendment, protecting citizens from "cruel and unusual" punishments. So, Engoron not only inflated the figures but shredded the Constitution in his effort to deliver a blow against Trump. Trump can now appeal the residual parts of the Engoron decision imposing limits on the Trump family doing business in New York. Some of those limits could be moot by the time of any final judgment. Ironically, if Engoron had shown a modicum of restraint, he might have secured a victory. During the trial in New York, I said that he would have been smart to impose a dollar fine and limited injunctive relief. That, however, required a modicum of judicial restraint and judgment. Instead, Engoron chose to walk down the stairway into infamy. He was off by half a billion dollars, which could put him in the Bernie Madoff class of judges. In other words, if he wanted to be remembered on that first day, Arthur Engoron succeeded.
Bloomberg
3 hours ago
- Bloomberg
Thai Royal Insult Verdict Against Thaksin Tests Shinawatra Clan's Grip on Power
A Thai court is set to rule whether former premier Thaksin Shinawatra is guilty of breaking the royal defamation law, the first verdict in a string of legal cases that threatens his family's decades-long political dominance. A criminal court in Bangkok is expected to rule at 10 a.m. Friday if 76-year-old Thaksin violated the lese majeste law, also known as Article 112 of Thailand's Penal Code, which protects the royal family from criticism and carries a prison term of up to 15 years.
Fox News
4 hours ago
- Fox News
Former assistant US attorney calls latest move in Trump's civil fraud case 'half-right'
Fox News contributor Andy McCarthy weighs in on a New York court voiding the $500 million civil fraud penalty against President Donald Trump in Attorney General Letitia James' case on 'America Reports.'
