Landmark barrister defeats appeal over Dale Farm evictions
Basildon Borough Council’s in-house lawyers have successfully defended the latest Dale Farm legal action in the Court of Appeal.
The authority instructed Landmark Chambers barrister Galina Ward, who persuaded appeal judges Sir Andrew Morritt and Lord Justices Patten and Pitchford that her client had not acted unreasonably or unlawfully in the eviction row over the UK’s largest unauthorised travellers settlement at Dale Farm.
The appellants, evictees John Sheridan, his estranged wife Barbara Sheridan and Mary Flynn, argued that they should have been offered an alternative site rather than council accommodation when Dale Farm was cleared.
They instructed Keith Lomax, a partner at Leeds-based legal aid firm Davies Gore Lomax, to take their case to Southend County Court, where it was thrown out. Park Court Chambers barrister Alex Offer appealed that decision on their behalf. He argued that Basildon Council should have acquired land for caravans as part of its Homelessness Strategy.
However, his challenge was dismissed. The judges stated: “A cultural aversion to bricks and mortar is not enough to make the offer of such accommodation unreasonable even if (as in Mrs Sheridan’s case) it may risk bouts of depression.”
Last year’s clearance of the illegal part of the travellers’ site in Basildon, Essex, resulted in violent clashes.
Readers' comments (4)
Dan | 24-Mar-2012 9:47 am
Galina Wards behaviour in argueing on behalf of Basildon council demonstrates that she sees legal argument as a game, and she is prepared to ride shotgun over the feelings of decent ordinary travelling people. The appeal court judges competence and humanity should be very strongly questioned, in view of their decision and accompanying comments.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 26-Mar-2012 8:44 pm
Re the comments above.
You obviously disagree with the judgement. But the law is the law and you have opportunistically seized on the fact that the judgement went against the travellers to traduce the legal process. Almost like the Dale Farm travellers themselves who welcomed court decisions when in their favour then refused to comply when judgements went against them.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Tara | 30-Mar-2012 10:27 am
I agree with the second comment. The law IS the law. Humanity is heavily considered during court judgments, but it is not supported with reference to preference. The travellers were offered a reasonable and suitable accommodation (council house), whilst none of their Human Rights were breached during this process. It is not completely mundane to suggest their reside in a house till they can legally find land to live on.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 10-Apr-2012 5:43 pm
How exciting! I can see all the Property Litigators spending hours, and munching through many left over Easter Eggs, debating this one :)
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment