SMITH: WEEPING GYPSIES LOOSE OLYMPIC BATTLE

A group of gypsies living on east London’s Olympic site have lost a High Court battle that could have halted vital construction work in the lead up to the 2012 Games.

Lisa Smith, Mary Reilly and Julia Reilly launched a legal bid to stop the compulsory purchase of their caravan sites in Stratford under the Human Rights Act.

The London Development Agency plan to bulldoze the sites at Clays Lane and Waterden Crescent although about 40 gypsies from the same extended family have lived there for 46 years.

The residents complained and a public inquiry held last October backed the compulsory purchase of Clay’s Lane as long as the government were satisfied that ‘suitable relocation sites’ were made available.

But Alastair Darling, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, said the ‘scale and the extent of physical infrastructure required for the Games made it necessary to confirm the compulsory purchase order’ immediately so that the land could be in the hands of developers by mid-2007.

The gypsies took both the secretary of state and the LDA to court, claiming they had failed to take into account the special rights of gypsies enshrined in the Human Rights Act.

But High Court judge, Mr Justice Wyn Williams threw out the case after hearing of the importance of the gypsy sites to the Olympic plan.

The court heard how the Clays Lane site is on the area earmarked for the Olympic village and the nearby Waterden Crescent site is close to where one of the stadia will be built.

And Newham Council has given planning permission for a new travellers’ site at nearby Major Road.

The gypsies say the site, which is large enough to house 15 caravans, is inadequate but a separate High Court legal challenge to stop the Major Road development going ahead failed in March.

Mr Justice Wyn Williams said: ‘Unless a substantial proportion of the order lands (including the sites) was under the control of the LDA by mid-2007 the Olympic development would be put at risk.

‘I do not find that the defendant’s decision to confirm the order was unjustified or disproportionate.

‘In my judgement, it was the least intrusive measure available to him. Realistically, the only way of ensuring that a substantial proportion of the order lands was under the control of the LDA by mid-2007 was to make the order.

‘No other measure, in my judgement, would have achieved that objective.’

The judge also rejected the gypsies’ claim that the LDA and the secretary of state had failed to take into account their duty ‘to recognise, protect and facilitate the traditional travelling way of life of gypsies and travellers’.

He said the secretary of state gave the human rights of the gypsies ‘very careful consideration’ when he made his decision.

He added: ‘Even if the defendant failed to have regard to the respect which was to be afforded for the claimants’ traditional way of life, nonetheless, his decision to confirm the order was proportionate.

‘When a decision make admits that his decision involves a very significant interference with the human rights of a group of people, the court has a duty to analyse rigorously the basis upon which that decision is said to be justified and proportionate.

‘Having subjected the decision of the defendant to such a rigorous assessment I have reached the clear conclusion that the defendant’s decision to confirm this compulsory purchase order is justified.

‘Accordingly, this claim failed.’

Travellers from the sites who had made their way to the High Court for today’s hearing wept as the judgement was handed down.
ends