Lords reject gypsy family's appeal
A family of gypsies today lost their House of Lords appeal that their eviction from a public recreation ground near Leeds breached their human rights.
In a landmark case the seven-strong House of Lords bench unanimously dismissed the appeal from the Maloney family.
They claimed that Leeds city council breached their human rights under article eight of the European Convention by evicting them from the land at Spinkwell Lane, Wakefield, West Yorkshire.
Lord Hope of Craighead noted that they had been at the recreation ground for only two days when proceedings against them began.
But he said: "They are, of course, gypsies who are in a vulnerable position as a minority."
But they had not established the links with the place which they were occupying that were needed for it to be considered their home within the meaning of article 8 (1) of the European Convention.
He said that consideration of their different lifestyle and needs was met by "requiring proof by the public authority of its entitlement as the owner of the land to obtain an order for possession in the exercise of its property rights".
The family, who have been evicted from 50 sites, have received legal aid which is understood to have already cost about £300,000.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the case in March last year, but took the unusual step of referring it for a hearing before the Law Lords because of conflict between national and European rulings.
The Court of Appeal said then that the family's only defence against possession proceedings by the council lay in the assertion that it would infringe their rights under Article 8 of the European Convention.
This provides that everyone has a right to respect for his/her private and family life and home.
Possession proceedings over the land began at Leeds County Court but were transferred to the High Court where a deputy judge ruled that human rights were not infringed.
Different groups of travellers moved on to the land from May 24 2004.
The Maloneys moved on to the site on June 13 2004 and two days later the council began possession proceedings at Leeds County Court.
Lord Bingham ruled: "There is nothing to suggest they could show continuous links with the land, as would be necessary if it were to be regarded as their home.
"If, however, the land is their home, it is plain that their eviction was in accordance with domestic property law, which had the legitimate end of enabling public authorities to evict unlawful squatters from public land and restore it to public (in this case recreational) use.
"I can see no ground on which such action could be stigmatised as disproportionate, despite the personal afflictions to which these appellants were unfortunately subject."
A Leeds City Council spokesman today called for local authorities to be given stronger powers to move unauthorised encampments.
Les Carter, the council's executive board member responsible for travellers' issues, said the problem cost the council around £250,000 every year.
He said: "Every year in Leeds we have to deal with around 60 unauthorised encampments which cost the council £250,000 in legal, cleansing and other costs as well as creating significant problems in the communities where they are located.
"Today's ruling is extremely good news since it upholds our right to take swift and effective action to regain possession of our land.
"It remains the council's view that the problem of unauthorised encampments will continue until stronger powers are given to local authorities to allow unauthorised encampments to be moved more effectively than exists at the moment.
"We urge those local authorities that do not have travellers sites to make provision."
it would not cost that to give them some where to live Taxpeyers money you think well its not it is of the bujet from cottingley srings caravan site
