Casey & Ors, R (on the application of) v Crawley Borough Council & Anor

A local authority may recover possession of land occupied by trespassing travellers where it has lawfully balanced the relevant considerations and reached a reasonable decision. The absence of an alternative caravan site does not itself create a duty to provide one, require toleration of an unauthorised encampment, or prevent possession proceedings. Government guidance is advisory, but failure to consider it may render a decision unlawful. Welfare enquiries must identify urgent or particular needs, rather than treating general disruption caused by repeated evictions as decisive. Assuming Article 8 applies, the property rights and public responsibilities of the local authority will ordinarily prevail in a case involving recent trespass, absent exceptional or especially compelling circumstances.

The claimants, Irish travellers, occupied two unauthorised encampments on land owned by Crawley Borough Council. The Council commenced possession proceedings and later reconsidered its decisions. The claimants sought judicial review, alleging conventional public-law error, breach of Article 8, legitimate expectation, failure to comply with homelessness duties, and breach of the race equality duty.

The claimants relied particularly on a 2004 arrangement concerning temporary toleration at Langley Green and on the absence of authorised caravan sites. The Council accepted housing duties under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996, but offered bricks-and-mortar accommodation. The central questions were whether the Council had lawfully considered the relevant matters and whether the absence of an alternative site prevented possession.

1. Legitimate expectation. The February 2004 arrangement was confined to the identified temporary and longer-term tolerated sites. Those sites had been provided, occupied and then vacated. Subsequent events had overtaken any expectation, and the arrangement could not support an expectation that the claimants could remain on a later unauthorised site. The claim based on R v Brent LBC ex p. McDonagh was distinguishable because that case involved an express promise not to evict.
2. Public-law review. The Council had to take account of all material considerations known or reasonably available at the time. The 2004 Guidance was advisory rather than legally binding, but was a material consideration. The Council had considered it, the site conditions, nuisance, traffic, recreational use, education, welfare and the available options. Imperfect paperwork and the misclassification of Dalewood under the illustrative site categories did not make the decisions Wednesbury unreasonable.
3. Alternative sites and welfare. There was no duty to provide a temporary or permanent caravan site. The absence of an alternative site did not prevent possession where the decision was otherwise reasonable. Welfare enquiries were intended to identify urgent or particular needs which might justify delay or relocation. No such need was established. General educational disruption caused by the shortage of sites and repeated movement did not make continued occupation of Dalewood necessary.
4. Article 8. The court assumed, without deciding, that eviction might engage Article 8. The assumed interference was at the lower end of the spectrum. Applying a more intensive review, the Council’s decisions fell within Article 8(2). Only the most extreme and sympathetic circumstances would justify defeating the local authority’s property rights against recent trespassers. No such circumstances existed.
5. Other grounds and outcome. The Council had accepted its homelessness duty and continued to make offers; no mandatory order was justified under section 184. There was no breach of the race equality duty. The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The judgment records earlier possession proceedings in the Horsham County Court, which were adjourned to allow these judicial review proceedings. No appellate history of the present claim is stated.