West Midlands Councils gain fresh car cruising injunctions against "persons unknown"

The High Court has granted six West Midlands councils injunctions to prevent car ‘cruising’ races on public roads.

Unusually, the case had 29 defendants, four of them categories of ‘persons unknown’.

Wolverhampton City Council and Dudley, Sandwell and Walsall metropolitan borough councils were granted injunctions against persons unknown engaged in unofficial motor races, those present who excepted to join in, drivers of vehicles and people who organise or publicise such events.

The four councils additionally applied for injunction against five named defendants.

Birmingham City Council applied for similar injunctions against 20 named people.

Mr Justice Julian Knowles granted interim injunctions last February with a power of arrest and said the councils were right to seek fresh injunctions rather than repeatedly extend old ones.

He said: “In short, I was wholly satisfied at the end of the hearing that it was appropriate to make the orders sought by [claimants].”
This was in the light of developing law on injunctions, in particular the Supreme Court case of Wolverhampton City Council and others v London Gypsies and Travellers and others.

The council argued the injunctions had led to a substantial reduction in car cruising and that committal proceedings for breaches of them had served as a deterrent. But the problem however had not gone away and so they sought fresh injunctions.

Julian Knowles J said in his judgment: “I am satisfied from the evidence I read and heard that the injunctions sought are necessary to restrain illegal and dangerous driving, with all its attendant consequences, both potential and real.”

He added: “I am satisfied that possible alternative remedies are likely to be impractical or ineffective.”

The judge said there was no risk that innocent bystanders would be unwittingly caught by the injunction, not least because the councils would need to prove ‘participation' to the criminal standard to show a breach of the injunctions, rather than merely that someone had been present.

“I do not consider that a dog-walker crossing a car-park, or a pedestrian waiting to cross the road, would be at risk of breaching them,” he said.

The judge added that he was satisfied that a power of arrest in both cases was appropriate under s 27, Police and Justice Act 2006.

Mark Smulian