News reaches us here at NL towers of another private sector Art.8 case (following Khela v Dainter, our note here). Details are sketchy, but it seems that Central London County Court was dealing with a possession claim against squatters. The CJ is said to have held that Art.8 applied to the possession claim (i.e. the squatters could argue that it was their home and the eviction was disproportionate) but that, on the facts, it was proportionate to make an order. Interestingly, the CJ has given permission to appeal.
Any more news would be appreciated.
Thanks to my mate and Traveller Planning Consultant, Simon Ruston, for directing me to this one concerning the ‘Grow Heathrow’ occupation. The case is Malik v Persons Unknown handed down at Central London County Court this morning (and also given leave to appeal though I am guessing there may be funding issues). I will e-mail what I have (which is just a draft) to NL – haven’t got the approved judgment yet
Here is a bit from the Guardian. As it’s the Grauniad it’s almost cruel to point out that there is no “t” in “Wednesday”.
We’ve now been provided with a copy of the judgment via Lindsay Johnson, counsel for two of the known persons unknown (if that isn’t too Rumsfeldian!). I’ll blog it properly as soon as time permits.
Someone might want to tell them that Art.8 does not confer a right to a home, but that might be too taxing for them.
To be honest I can’t really see how this judgement will set a precedent but it seems quite intriguing. Would it be possible to obtain a copy of the full judgement? I haven’t had any luck tracking it down yet.
Seems like Grow Heathrow will pursue the appeal – they’re asking for donations at their website – http://www.transitionheathrow.com/grow-heathrow/
It clearly doesn’t set a precedent, (at least, not a binding one; other county court judges may find it persuasive). It’s the grant of permission to appeal that opens the door to a precendent.
Who are we telling that to, S? Presumably ‘Someone’ is you? Anyway (though not really relevant in a private landowner case!!) in extreme cases, article 8 can effectively arrive at a right to a home e.g. Guerra v Italy; Lopez Ostra v Spain.