Birmingham City Council v Persons Unknown & Ors

At an annual review of a quasi-final injunction against street cruising, the court must examine whether any material factual or legal change has occurred since the order was granted or last reviewed. The review is not a rehearing of the original merits. A reduction in prohibited activity may demonstrate that the injunction is effective, rather than that the underlying risk has disappeared. Where the risk persists, the court may continue the injunction and power of arrest, while correcting or clarifying its terms. The order should state its duration clearly. Any application to extend an order approaching expiry remains the claimant’s responsibility and must be separately served and determined.

Birmingham City Council sought the continuation of a quasi-final injunction and associated power of arrest restraining street-cruising activity within its administrative area. The injunction had been granted in 2024 and modified following an annual review in 2025. Updated evidence showed a substantial reduction in activity, but continuing incidents, contempt findings, police monitoring and displacement to neighbouring areas. The court considered service, the continued need for injunctive relief, the identification of the Persons Unknown defendants, the geographical and substantive scope of the order, its duration, alternative service and the need for a further review. The central issue was whether any material factual or legal change justified discharge or further variation.

1. Review and material change. The review was not an opportunity to revisit the original merits. The court had to consider whether anything material had changed since the injunction was granted or last reviewed, including factual developments and changes in the law. No material change of either kind was established.
2. Continuing justification. The evidence showed that street cruising had reduced, but had not disappeared. The reduction was consistent with the injunction having a deterrent effect and did not establish that the underlying risk had abated. Continuing contempt applications, smaller gatherings, police monitoring, diversionary courses and complaints supported the conclusion that compelling justification remained. Damages were not an adequate remedy for the relevant public nuisance and anti-social behaviour.
3. Scope and service. There had been no material change requiring alteration to the categories of Persons Unknown, the prohibited acts or the geographical boundary. Alternative service remained proportionate. The court reinstated a requirement for roadside hard-copy and electronic signage because the evidence indicated that signage materially assisted notification of the injunction.
4. Duration and future extension. The replacement order was required to state clearly that the injunction and power of arrest would expire on 27 February 2027. The court declined to list a further review in advance of expiry. If the Council sought an extension, it had to make a timely application, serve it on the defendants and obtain a hearing on the merits.
5. Disposition. The existing Further Amended Injunction and Power of Arrest were discharged upon service of replacement orders. The injunction and power of arrest were continued in amended form until the original expiry date.

The judgment describes earlier stages of the same proceedings:

• High Court: interim injunction and power of arrest granted on 22 December 2022.
• High Court: quasi-final injunction and power of arrest granted on 27 February 2024.
• High Court: first annual review determined by Ritchie J on 26 February 2025, reported at [2025] EWHC 1102 (KB).
• High Court: the present annual review continued the relief with amendments.