High Court supports Islington council's bid to end Finsbury Square occupation
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.The High Court has backed a council's move to end the seven-month occupation of a square in London.
Mr Justice Hickinbottom said the balance was "overwhelmingly in favour" of granting an immediate possession order and injunction against the trespassers in Finsbury Square.
Islington council, in north London, said it would not enforce the ruling until Wednesday, after the Bank Holiday weekend.
The judge said he was not satisfied that the protesters, despite their sincere views on important social and economic issues, had any substantial ground for defending the claim.
Islington acted properly throughout, behaved responsibly and fairly, and brought proceedings as a "last resort".
The camp, which is made up of around 135 tents and a wooden structure, was set up on the public land of the square in October, as an extension of the Occupy movement's protest in St Paul's Churchyard - which ended in eviction in February.
The judge heard it had caused £20,000 damage to the land, cost the council £26,000 on security, and lost it £12,000 in rent plus income from the square's restaurant which had to close.
There had been an adverse impact on local business and complaints about anti-social behaviour from the camp, which increasingly became a focus for the homeless, and which had no running water or sufficient toilet facilities.
The judge refused permission to appeal although the protesters can apply directly to the Court of Appeal.
PA
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments