High Court extends injunction in Rochdale

The High Court in Rochdale recently renewed an injunction aimed at curbing unauthorised encampments within the borough, showcasing its dedication to controlling public order. The ruling, delivered on 28th May 2025, was made by Mr Justice Garnham in the King's Bench Division of the High Court. The renewed injunction, initially granted on 11th June 2024, is a pivotal legal mechanism for Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council, as it addresses ongoing challenges associated with unlawful encampments in the area.

The council sought to extend the injunction for an additional 12 months, with the existing order set to expire on 8th June 2025. This injunction targets two unidentified groups referred to as "Persons Unknown," particularly aimed at individuals unlawfully occupying land in Rochdale. It imposes restrictions on 334 designated sites across the borough, which constitutes about 9.7% of the total land area, along with prohibiting unauthorised encampments and the creation of waste deposits. The need for this injunction arose from a notable increase in unauthorised encampments in recent years, leading to severe public health concerns, damage to local amenities, and escalating costs for cleaning up after these encampments.

During the proceedings, Mr Justice Garnham highlighted that the council had complied with established protocols to inform those affected by the injunction. The court underscored the importance of recent judicial precedents, especially referencing the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Wolverhampton case. This ruling emphasised that injunctions against unidentified individuals require careful procedural handling to ensure a balance between civil rights. Upon reviewing the evidence, Justice Garnham noted the effectiveness of the injunction, pointing to a significant decline in the frequency and duration of unauthorised encampments since its implementation. Evidence indicated fewer instances of harmful activities, including fly-tipping, which were previously associated with these encampments. Reports chronicled concerns such as untreated human waste deposits and threats faced by local residents prior to the injunction's enforcement.

While acknowledging some continued occurrences of unauthorised encampments, Justice Garnham stated that their frequency had markedly decreased, emphasizing the ongoing need for such an injunction. He recognised that injuries to the community indicated that the circumstances justifying the order still prevail.

In his judgment, Justice Garnham affirmed that local councils retain the authority to pursue court injunctions to safeguard the public interest. He reiterated that the council had a compelling justification to reduce disruption caused by unauthorised encampments, leading him to extend the injunction for another year. However, the ruling includes a provision allowing those affected by the order to request court modifications, thereby ensuring procedural fairness.

This decision is expected to provide the council with essential legal support to effectively manage unauthorised encampments, balancing the rights of the travelling community with the safety and welfare of local residents. Justice Garnham's ruling stands as a legal precedent for councils facing similar challenges and reinforces the judiciary's commitment to maintaining public order while considering community dynamics. This case underscores the ongoing tension between local authorities striving to manage public spaces responsibly and the rights of transient populations.