Traveller family fails in damages claim concerning housing delays

A TRAVELLER couple and their eight children, who claimed that delays in housing them had led to health problems and disruption to the children's education, have lost their High Court action for damages.

Mr Justice Roderick Murphy expressed concern about the use of criminal trespass legislation against the Lawrence family over parking their caravan in the car park of Ballina swimming pool in circumstances where they were not told by the local authorities where they could lawfully park their caravan in Co Mayo.

He noted that, after their solicitor asked in what area they could legitimately park their caravan, they received no reply. The local authority should not ignore the plight of a Traveller family, he said.

However, the criminal trespass laws were "not necessarily discriminatory" in relation to the family, he concluded.

The Equality Authority had argued the use of criminal trespass legislation against the family could amount to indirect discrimination against Travellers, given their nomadic lifestyle, as it effectively criminalised the stopping anywhere other than on certain road sites or authorised halting sites.

In their action, Patrick and Ann Lawrence and their children, aged from seven to 22, claimed Ballina Town Council and Mayo County Council breached their housing rights over an eight-year period from 1997 until they were housed in an estate in Ballina in June 2005. They claimed they experienced health problems including, in Ms Lawrence's case, depression, diabetes and stress, as a result of their living conditions.

The family lived in different locations, including in two caravans in conditions described as "unfit for human habitation" in the car park of Ballina swimming pool for a number of years.

In a 76-page reserved judgment, Mr Justice Murphy dismissed the claims of breaches of housing rights and ruled that Ballina Town Council and Mayo County Council had, from the time the family were on the housing list from April 2002, met their obligations to assess their needs.

He also found no evidence to show discrimination between the family and others on the housing list. It was clear the family had been accorded priority, second only to a related family of 15 who were on the list for many years earlier, he noted. He also had to consider the limitation on housing available and the needs of other Traveller families.

The mere assertion by the town council that the family had not pursued a shared ownership option was not proof there was a viable alternative for them [ to park their caravan], he said. There was no viable alternative provided.

Asking whether such indirect discrimination could be objectively justified as appropriate and necessary in the circumstances, the judge noted there was no defence of necessity in the criminal trespass laws which would allow an alleged offender to show a failure on the part of a local authority to provide permanent or temporary accommodation.

While there might be a "conceptual possibility" of indirect discrimination as argued by the Equality Authority in that Travellers of their nature are more likely to be at a disadvantage under the criminal trespass laws, there were "conceptual reasons" where the measure may be objectively justified by legitimate aim, he said.