Tree group face orders barring protests
Council and protesters in court
LEGAL ACTION against eight tree campaigners from Sheffield is to begin in Leeds today.
Sheffield City Council is taking legal action against the group, including one of its own councillors, in a bid to prevent them from participating in future protests against the removal of trees from the city’s streets. Campaigners have been standing directly underneath threatened trees to stop contractors from felling.
A three-day hearing is due to take place in the High Court in Leeds to determine whether the injunctions can be granted.
If the orders are given, the campaigners will be banned from taking part in “direct action” and could be sued for damages by the council or potentially go to prison if they do so.
A number of other campaigners sent letters warning them they faced being taken to court have already signed commitments stating they will not participate in future protests.
The court case is part of an increasingly bitter dispute between the council and campaigners over the removal of 6,000 street trees.
The council says it is removing only dead, dying, diseased or dangerous trees as part of its £2bn PFI highways maintenance contract with Amey but protesters insist many healthy trees are being removed unnecessarily as a cost-cutting measure.
One of those who is facing legal action is Green Party councillor Alison Teal, who has described the council’s actions as “Stalinist”.
Fourteen people have previously been arrested at protests but no charges brought. In March, police commissioner Alan Billings said there would be no further arrests as “the CPS are not prepared to criminalise peaceful protesters”.
The council says the actions of the protesters in disrupting work has been ‘unlawful’.
THE ONGOING saga surrounding tree-felling in Sheffield will enter its latest chapter in Leeds today as a three-day court case with potential national ramifications for local democracy begins.
Sheffield Council is taking legal action against eight campaigners, including one of its own councillors, in a bid to prevent them from participating in future protests against the removal of trees from the city’s streets.
If the injunctions are granted, those involved would be barred from “direct action” and could be chased for damages or even face the prospect of jail should they disobey. The council claims such draconian action is a last resort after months of disruption to the felling programme, with protesters’ tactics including standing directly under trees scheduled for removal.
Thousands of trees are being removed as part of a 25-year £2bn highway maintenance programme based on a controversial PFI contract signed with contractor Amey in 2012.
While the council insist only trees that are dead, dying, diseased or dangerous are being removed and then replaced, protesters argue with equal conviction that many do not need to be chopped down and the work is being carried out as a cost-cutting exercise.
The seemingly intractable situation has already resulted in numerous arrests, including of pensioners, with cases subsequently dropped by the CPS. The outcome of this latest court battle may well set a precedent for how councils deal with those who protest against their policies and as such, is one we should all watch with interest and concern.