Judge adjourns hearing of application by city council for injunction over unauthorised flats: report

The BBC has reported that Judge Emma Kelly was “troubled” by a lack of clarity in Birmingham’s case over allegations made against named individuals. A further hearing is due on 30 September.

Birmingham said in a statement that it wanted an injunction, including an interim injunction and power of arrest, to prevent flags being attached to street furniture and highway infrastructure without permission, and to deal with obstruction of the highways, interference with council officers or contractors carrying out removal work and “behaviour alleged to amount to harassment, alarm or distress towards council staff, contractors, elected members and members of the public”.

The council explained that unauthorised attachments to street furniture could create highway safety risks, obstruct visibility, interfere with highway assets and contribute to tensions and disorder.

Jane Baston, cabinet member for equalities communities and social justice, said: “The council is taking a lawful, proportionate and evidence-led approach to unauthorised attachments on the highway. This includes pursuing injunctive action based on the evidence gathered to date.

“Our priority is to protect public safety, staff and contractor welfare, community cohesion and the responsible use of public funds. We ask residents and community groups to support this approach and to ensure any displays are placed only where permission exists.”

Birmingham said in its skeleton argument there was no lawful basis for the flag-raisers’ conduct, which could be expected to escalate unless prevented by an injunction.

“It is highly likely that such behaviour will ultimately lead to serious injury or death, and further disruption and division within [the city’s] local communities,” it said.

The offending flags are mainly Union Jacks and St George crosses but the council said its application “is not based on the nature of type of flags raised by the defendants”.

Birmingham said it was not taking sides between different groups but had acted after residents complained about the behaviour people fixing flags

Birmingham first sought the injunctions last month, when it said: “The installation and then reinstallation of flags, does have an impact on the public and we have witnessed incidents that have involved harassment, intimidation or obstruction during removal activity.”

Oxfordshire in June secured a High Court injunction preventing the unauthorised placement of flags on highway infrastructure across the county.

When Mr Justice Dias published the reasons for granting the county's application, he said there was "little prospect absent an injunction" that the activity would stop.

Mark Smulian