Sheffield City Council v Simon Crump
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Males |
| Judgment Date | 07 June 2018 |
| Neutral Citation | [2018] EWHC 1411 (QB) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Date | 07 June 2018 |
| Docket Number | Case No: D92LS739 |
[2018] EWHC 1411 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
SHEFFIELD DISTRICT REGISTRY
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice Males
Case No: D92LS739
Yaaser Vanderman (instructed by Sheffield City Council) for the Claimant
Paul Powlesland (instructed by Lloyds PR Solicitors) for Simon Crump and Fran Grace
Owen Greenhall (instructed by Lloyds PR Solicitors) for Benoit Compin and Paul Brooke
Hearing dates: 5 to 7 June 2018
Judgment Approved
Introduction
This is an application by Sheffield City Council to commit four citizens of Sheffield to prison for contempt of court. Two of these individuals, Simon Crump and Paul Brooke, were defendants in this action and gave undertakings of which they are now alleged to be in breach. The other two individuals, Fran Grace and Benoit Compin, were not named defendants but are alleged to be in breach of an injunction which I granted against persons unknown.
The application arises out of the council's controversial tree felling programme which forms part of a 25 year highway maintenance programme known as “Streets Ahead”. The background is set out in detail in my judgment in Sheffield City Council v Fairhall dated 15 th August 2017 ( [2017] EWHC 2121 (QB)). In that judgment I decided that there should be an injunction to restrain the defendants from taking action to prevent the felling by the council and its contractor of trees on the public highway by maintaining a presence within a safety zone erected around a tree.
It is important at the outset to make the following points.
First, as I hope I made clear in my August 2017 judgment, I expressed no view then, one way or the other, as to the merits of the tree felling programme or the objections to it. That remains the position. It is not for the court to have any view about this or for any such view to play any part in the decision which I now have to make. That decision is whether the defendants or any of them are in breach either of their undertaking or of the injunction.
Second, I recognise that the tree felling programme has excited some very strong emotions. That is certainly so in the case of the present defendants who object strongly to the felling of healthy trees. Their views are shared by a large number of Sheffield citizens and others, many of whom have been both vocal and active. On the other hand, there are also strong views on the other side, albeit less vocal. The evidence was that many residents support the programme.
Third, it is useful to recall the history of these proceedings. The challenge to the council's tree felling programme began with an application for judicial review which failed. In proceedings brought by Mr David Dillner it was held that the council's decision to remove trees was a decision made pursuant to its statutory duty to maintain the highway and was lawful: see R (Dillner) v Sheffield City Council [2016] EWHC 945 (Admin). That was followed by the council's application for an injunction. For the reasons which I gave more fully in my judgment, I held that even if the action taken by protesters had initially been a lawful exercise of the right to protest in order to encourage the council to think again, it was apparent that the council had thought again and had decided that it was in the interests of the people of Sheffield as a whole to maintain its policy. That was, therefore, the considered decision of the democratically accountable statutory body charged with responsibility for determining how the highway should be repaired and maintained and how public resources should be allocated. Whatever view may be had about its decision, it was accountable to the people of Sheffield through the ballot box.
Fourth, since the tree felling programme began there have been not one but two opportunities for the people of Sheffield to consider this issue. In May 2016 there was an election in which all 84 council seats were contested. In May 2018 there was a further local election. Politically controversial as this issue undoubtedly is, the fact is that on both occasions the people of Sheffield voted for councillors a majority of whom supported the tree felling programme.
Fifth, and fundamentally, this is a society governed by the rule of law. It is for the people to vote for their elected representatives at both national and local level. Parliament then makes the law, which includes determining the functions to be carried out by local authorities. Parliament has entrusted to local authorities, in this case Sheffield City Council, the function of repairing and maintaining the highway. It is then for the courts to interpret and, where necessary, enforce that law. If a court gets the law wrong, as sometimes happens, the aggrieved party can appeal to a higher court. The defendants in this action could have sought permission to appeal against my judgment if they considered that the law gave them the right to continue to prevent tree felling by maintaining a presence within safety zones. They did not do so. I have no doubt that they were competently advised as to the prospects of an appeal and took the view that an appeal would not have any real prospect of success.
Sixth, it follows that the injunction which I granted reflects the considered decision of the democratically elected body entrusted by Parliament with the responsibility of repairing and maintaining the highway and is in accordance with the law.
Seventh, it was because of the importance of democratic accountability in this case that I sought reassurance at the outset of the hearing of this application that the application was brought with the approval of democratically elected councillors including specifically the Leader of the Council. It may be, as Mr Yasser Vanderman for the council told me, that the decision whether to bring this application was constitutionally a decision for the council's Legal Director to make. Nevertheless, I would have been uneasy in the circumstances of this case if an application was being made on behalf of the council to commit citizens of Sheffield to prison without the support of democratically elected councillors. In response to my enquiry, I was told that the application was supported by the Leader of the Council.
Eighth, it is critical to the rule of law that the orders of the court should be complied with. If we were to reach a position where orders made by the court could be ignored with impunity by those who disagree with them, we would have lost something very precious.
The undertakings/injunction
The undertakings given by Simon Crump and Paul Brooke were as follows:
“I will not:
i) enter any safety zone erected around any tree within the area shown edged red on the plan attached hereto;
ii) seek to prevent the erection of any safety zone;
iii) remain in any safety zone after it is erected;
iv) knowingly leave any vehicle in any safety zone or intentionally place a vehicle in a position so as to prevent the erection of a safety zone;
Nor will I encourage, aid, counsel, direct or facilitate anybody else to do any of the matters in paragraphs (i) to (iv) above including by posting social media messages.”
The area shown edged red on the attached plan was the administrative area of the City of Sheffield. The undertaking was stated to apply until 23:59 on 25 th July 2018. It contained no definition of a “safety zone”.
Although these undertakings were given reluctantly, it was expressly made clear in their presence that Simon Crump and Paul Brooke gave them of their own free will, understanding that the undertakings bound them to the same extent as if an order in the same terms had been made against them. The undertakings were given in the course of the hearing and before I gave judgment.
The injunction which I granted was in essentially the same terms as the undertakings already given, although it included a definition of a safety zone as follows:
“For the avoidance of doubt a ‘safety zone’ is that area delineated by barriers erected on the public highway around a tree to be felled.”
Strictly speaking, the fact that this definition forms part of the injunction but not of the undertakings opens the door to argument that the regime applicable in the two cases is not necessarily the same. For example, in a judgment dated 31 October 2017 on an application to commit Alison Teal and Calvin Payne, I ruled that in order to comprise a safety zone within the definition in the injunction, there must be a defined area enclosed by barriers which have been erected on the public highway (see [2017] EWHC 2692 (QB) at [11]). That ruling depended on the particular wording of the definition which is not included in the undertakings. Nevertheless it would be absurd in my judgment if two protesters standing side-by-side, one of whom had given an undertaking while the other had not and therefore was subject to the injunction, were to be governed by different regimes. That is not how matters have been understood in practice. It appears to have been the common understanding of the council and of those such as Dr Crump who have given undertakings that the latter are bound to the same extent as provided by the injunction. In my judgment that is a sensible and correct basis on which to proceed.
The application
The application to commit is concerned with five separate incidents on different dates as follows:
(1) 18 th December 2017 – Simon Crump and Fran Grace;
(2) 10 th January 2018 – Benoit Compin;
(3) 16 th January 2018 – Simon Crump;
(4) 22 nd January 2018 – Paul Brooke; and
(5) 5 th March 2018 – Benoit Compin
I propose to reserve judgment in the case of Paul Brooke as the application...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sheffield City Council v Paul Brooke
...Grace and Benoit Compin. I gave judgment relating to these other defendants at the conclusion of the hearing on 7th May 2018 (see Sheffield City Council v Crump [2018] EWHC 1411 (QB)), but reserved my decision in the case of Mr Brooke in order to consider further the legal submissions which......