High Court says Black Country car cruising injunction should continue in force

An order prohibiting car cruising in the Black Country continues to fulfil the purposes for which it was granted, and appears to be operating satisfactorily, the High Court has said.

In Wolverhampton City Council & Ors v Persons Unknown [2020] EWHC 759 (QB) HHJ Worster, sitting as a Judge of the High Court, said that having reviewed the matter, the order should continue in force.

The original order was made on 1 December 2014 by HHJ Robert Owen QC covering the areas of Wolverhampton, Dudley, Sandwell and Walsall Councils. It came into force on 2 February 2015 for three years, and was subject to requirements of publicity and review.

On 9 January 2018 HHJ McKenna extended the order for a further 3 years or until varied or discharged by the court. Once again, there were provisions for publicity and review.

The claimant councils sought a review, which was listed for hearing on 30 March 2020. As a consequence of the COVID 19 outbreak and the restrictions on movement announced by HM Government, HHJ Worster directed that the councils’ attendance be dispensed with.

This hearing was technically in open court, but the reality of the restrictions on movement at the moment was such that further steps were desirable to ensure that the public are aware of the court's continued consideration of this order. This short written judgment could be published on BAILII to satisfy that requirement, the judge said.

HHJ Worster said that in the circumstances, the councils had proposed that they "consult" through social media. He approved that course, and as a result they issued a press release on the Wolverhampton CC Facebook page inviting responses for and against, and publicised it further in the Express and Star, on Midlands Today and on local radio stations.

They received four responses from:

1. A gentleman who runs a "big car event" in Stoke said that he has 500 cars at each event, no anti-social behaviour, good police presence throughout the night with very little complaint.
2. A resident of the WV14 postcode, who complained that the injunction had been ineffective and that it was still common at the weekend at night to hear cars "rallying and doing stunt drifts on the local car parks and industrial estates".
3. A manager at Wolverhampton City Council concerned that with improving weather and the strain placed on police forces by the COVID 19 outbreak, drivers would take advantage of the empty roads and use them as racetracks, leading to further deaths.
4. A respondent who issued a plea to keep the injunction because the NHS could not cope with people getting hurt on the roads on top of the coronavirus pandemic.

HHJ Worster noted that since the grant of the order covering the Black Country, a defendant (Mr Sharif) to a car cruising injunction granted on the application of Birmingham City Council who faced committal proceedings for its breach, had challenged the making of the Birmingham order on the basis that it was wrong in principle.

HHJ McKenna dismissed that challenge in Birmingham City Council v Sharif [2019] EWHC 1268 (QB) but Mr Sharif had appealed. His appeal had yet to be considered.

HHJ Worster said: “As matters stand applications to commit for breach of that order have been stayed. If the Court of Appeal in the Birmingham case decide that the court should not make orders of this sort, then this order should be immediately referred back to the Court. On the basis of the current position I see no reason to interfere with this order on the grounds put forward by Mr Sharif.”

The judge said that in considering whether to grant the order in this and other car cruising cases, the Court had had regard to the concerns which give rise to the requirements set out by Longmore LJ in Boyd and anor v Ineos Upstream Ltd & 9 ors [2019] EWCA CIV 515.

"(1) there must be a sufficiently real and imminent risk of a tort being committed to justify quia timet relief;

(2) it is impossible to name the persons who are likely to commit the tort unless restrained;

(3) it is possible to give effective notice of the injunction and for the method of such notice to be set out in the order;

(4) the terms of the injunction must correspond to the threatened tort and not be so wide that they prohibit lawful conduct;

(5) the terms of the injunction must be sufficiently clear and precise as to enable persons potentially affected to know what they must not do; and

(6) the injunction should have clear geographical and temporal limits."

HHJ Worster said: “There is plain evidence of the need for a quia timet injunction. The evidence is that such orders have been effective, but as some of the responses to the consultation in this case illustrate, the problem persists. The danger it poses at a time when the NHS and the Police are stretched is all the greater.”

The judge concluded that the Ineos requirements were met in this case.

He added that the suggestion that these "events" might be policed was not one which justified variation or discharge, whether in the current situation or at all.

“These "events" take place on the highway and private property such as supermarket car park sand industrial estates without the permission of the relevant authority or landowner. They have led to accidents and injury and are a nuisance to those who live nearby or want to use the highway for lawful purposes,” the judge said.

“If they were organised on a private racetrack or some suitably safe environment that would be one thing. But they are not. And as the Claimant submits, 'it is an inappropriate unnecessary and wasteful use of Police resources to police such events when resources are stretched thin'. I agree.”

HHJ Worster concluded that the order should continue in force.