How Criminalising Nomadic Life Violates Human Rights and Demands Urgent Reform

In July 2024, the High Court ruled that the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 unlawfully discriminates against Romani and Gypsy communities. Yet the Government continues to enforce it. This is the story of legislation designed to erase a culture—and why we must fight back now.

KEY FACTS

• High Court ruled the Act discriminatory under Article 14 ECHR (July 2024)

• 4,000 authorised pitch shortfall across England—yet funding has been cut since 2010

• 56% reduction in stopping sites between 2020-2023 as local authorities close sites and accelerate evictions

• Used only 34 times in the first year across 43 police forces—undermining Government claims of necessity

• 90% rejection rate for Traveller planning applications vs. 10% for conventional housing

• Gypsy and Traveller life expectancy is 10-12 years lower than the national average

• Traveller women are 20 times more likely to experience maternal mortality

The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 has become a weapon of systemic discrimination against Romani and Gypsy communities in England and Wales. What the Government presented as measures to manage unauthorised encampments is, in reality, legislation that criminalises a way of life protected under equality law—and its reach extends far beyond Traveller communities to protesters, homeless people, and anyone the state deems inconvenient.

This matters now because a High Court has declared the Act incompatible with human rights law, yet Parliament can—and may—simply ignore that ruling. Meanwhile, families are being displaced, children are missing school, pregnant women are losing access to healthcare, and a protected ethnic minority is being systematically erased through legislative coercion.

The Court Ruled It Discriminatory....But There Are Limits

Part 4 of the Act criminalises residing on land without consent in or with a vehicle, with penalties including fines up to £2,500 and vehicle seizure—effectively destroying families' homes. In July 2024, the High Court delivered a landmark ruling in R (on the application of Styles) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, finding these provisions incompatible with Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to non-discrimination) when read with Article 8 (the right to respect for private and family life).

Mr Justice Saini concluded that the Act imposed a disproportionate burden on Gypsy and Traveller communities, constituting unlawful discrimination. Yet we must acknowledge the ruling's limitations: under UK law, this declaration doesn't automatically invalidate the legislation. Parliament retains sovereignty and can ignore judicial findings. Moreover, the ruling specifically protects Romani and Gypsy communities, leaving homeless people living in vehicles, New Travellers, and van dwellers without the same legal protection. This creates a hierarchy of rights that, whilst legally coherent, may undermine broader solidarity.

The ruling is significant, but it's not a complete victory—it's a legal signal that Parliament must act. Whether they will is a political question, not a legal certainty. That's why public pressure and advocacy are essential now.

Understanding Article 14: The Legal Framework

Article 14 ECHR: "The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms outlined in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status."

For Romani and Gypsy communities, whose nomadic lifestyle is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010, Article 8 encompasses the right to maintain cultural identity through nomadic living. The European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly affirmed that states must facilitate—not criminalise—the Traveller way of life.

However, we must acknowledge tensions in European Court jurisprudence. Cases like Chapman v United Kingdom (2001) established that states have a "wide margin of appreciation" in balancing competing interests, and that Article 8 does not guarantee an absolute right to live wherever one chooses. The Court has held that planning and environmental considerations can justify restrictions on Traveller occupation, provided they are proportionate.

This creates complexity: whilst the Court recognises Traveller rights, it grants states considerable discretion to limit them. The strength of the Styles ruling lies in finding that the Act fails even this deferential proportionality test—a high bar that the Government spectacularly failed to clear.

The Proportionality Test: How the Act Fails

The High Court found the Act violated Article 14 because it treats Romani and Gypsy people differently without justification. Whilst housed populations live in their homes without criminalisation, nomadic communities face prosecution for the same fundamental act: living in their dwelling. This differential treatment, applied to a protected ethnic minority, is unlawful discrimination.

The Court examined whether the Act met the required proportionality test:

1. Is the objective important enough to justify limiting rights?

The Government failed to prove existing civil powers were insufficient. Police forces themselves reported that existing powers were adequate but inconsistently applied. The problem was resource allocation and political will, not legislative gaps. The National Police Chiefs' Council expressed reservations during the Bill's passage, questioning whether new powers were needed at all.

2. Do the measures rationally address the problem?

Criminalising homelessness doesn't create homes—it only displaces people. The Government's own impact assessment admitted the provisions would cause "displacement" rather than resolution, fundamentally undermining the claim that these measures solve the stated problem. If your policy doesn't address the root cause, it fails the rationality test.

3. Are the means proportionate?

Vehicle seizure and criminal penalties far exceed what's necessary. Civil remedies, community mediation, and negotiated stopping arrangements—less restrictive alternatives—were ignored entirely. The failure to exhaust these options before resorting to criminalisation demonstrates clear disproportionality.

4. Is there a fair balance between individual rights and community interests?

No. The Act prioritises the convenience of settled communities over the fundamental rights and cultural existence of Romani and Gypsy peoples. When the state fails to provide adequate sites (a 4,000 pitch shortfall), then it criminalises people for having nowhere else to go, no fair balance exists. This is Kafkaesque—punishing people for circumstances created by state failure.

Democracy vs. Human Rights: Why Majority Opinion Doesn't Trump Minority Protection

Yet we must acknowledge the political context. Unauthorised encampments do create tensions—refuse accumulation, disruption to local amenities, and community anxiety are real phenomena documented in local authority reports. The Government's consultation received over 4,000 responses, with a majority from settled communities supporting stronger enforcement.

This raises uncomfortable questions: when majority preferences conflict with minority rights, which should prevail?

Human rights frameworks answer unequivocally—minority protection trumps majority preference—but this creates democratic tensions that fuel populist backlash against "unelected judges" and "European interference."

The principled response is clear: human rights exist precisely to protect minorities from majority tyranny. If rights could be voted away by popular demand, they would cease to be rights at all.

History teaches us this lesson repeatedly:

• Segregation in the American South enjoyed majority support

• Apartheid in South Africa was democratically enacted

• The criminalisation of homosexuality reflected popular sentiment

In each case, courts eventually recognised that majority prejudice cannot legitimate minority oppression. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act represents the same fallacy in contemporary form—attempting to use a democratic mandate to justify discrimination against a protected ethnic minority.

Beyond Travellers: An Act Against Dissent....With Complexities

The Act's assault on civil liberties extends beyond Part 4. Part 3 expanded police powers over protests, introducing vague concepts like "serious annoyance" as grounds for restricting demonstrations. Police can now impose conditions on single-person protests and criminalise "locking on," with sentences up to 51 weeks imprisonment.

The vagueness is the problem. If annoyance justifies suppression, no meaningful protest remains protected:

• A picket line annoys employers

• A vigil annoys diplomats

• A march annoys shoppers

The Act grants police dangerous discretion that creates a chilling effect extending far beyond disruptive protests to any demonstration that might irritate those affected.

The Disruption Dilemma: Acknowledging Tensions Honestly

However, we must engage honestly with the tensions. Extinction Rebellion's tactics—blocking roads, disrupting public transport—undeniably inconvenience the public. Insulate Britain's motorway protests prevented people from reaching hospitals, work, and family emergencies. These are not trivial impositions, and the frustration of affected individuals is understandable and legitimate.

The Government argues that existing public order legislation proved inadequate, with protesters returning to blockades within hours of release under previous laws—the "revolving door" problem that police forces reported.

But here's the critical question: Is "serious annoyance" an appropriately defined threshold for criminalising expression?

No. The term is too vague and grants excessive discretion. But dismissing all concerns about protest disruption as mere state authoritarianism oversimplifies a genuine tension in liberal democracy: how much disruption must society tolerate in the name of free expression?

The answer lies not in criminalising annoyance, but in developing proportionate responses that balance rights. The Act abandons this balance entirely, opting for broad suppression over nuanced regulation.

Discriminatory Enforcement: The Real Problem

Evidence of differential application is substantial and concerning. Netpol's monitoring reveals that climate and racial justice protests face swift enforcement of the Act's provisions, with police imposing conditions preemptively and arresting organisers before demonstrations begin. Meanwhile, far-right demonstrations, often involving explicitly racist chanting and intimidation of minorities, frequently receive more permissive policing.

Internal police communications obtained through freedom of information requests reveal that climate protesters are characterised as "extremists" whilst far-right demonstrators receive more neutral descriptors. This framing influences operational decisions, creating conditions where left-wing protests receive more aggressive policing, which provokes more confrontation, which retrospectively justifies the aggressive approach—a self-fulfilling prophecy.

British policing has a documented history of political bias:

• Undercover infiltration of left-wing groups (exposed by the Undercover Policing Inquiry)

• Blacklisting of trade unionists

• Disproportionate surveillance of Black Lives Matter organisers

The Act's protest provisions must be assessed against this backdrop of institutional political discrimination, not as neutral tools applied objectively.

Criminalising Homelessness: The Expanding Reach

The Act also criminalises over 15,000 homeless people living in vehicles due to housing unaffordability—a figure that has doubled since 2016, according to Crisis, the homelessness charity. Despite Government assurances during parliamentary debates that the Act wouldn't target homeless individuals, early evidence shows exactly that happening.

Home Office guidance to police emphasises that powers should be used "proportionately and as a last resort." But guidance is not law. Once powers exist, their application depends on individual officer discretion and local authority priorities. The gap between stated intent and practical application is a recurring feature of criminal justice legislation—powers granted for "specific purposes" inevitably expand to fill available enforcement space.

If the Government genuinely intended to exempt homeless individuals, explicit legislative language could have achieved this. The failure to include such exemptions suggests the broad application is not an unintended consequence but a designed feature—or at minimum, an accepted risk the Government was willing to take.

The Reality: Erasure by Design

"Local authorities face perverse incentives. Providing authorised sites requires capital investment, ongoing maintenance costs, and political courage to face opposition from settled communities. Using enforcement powers to move families on appears cost-free in the short term, displacing the problem to neighbouring authorities rather than solving it."

The Act's impact on Romani and Gypsy families is devastating and measurable. Research from Friends, Families and Travellers documented a 56% reduction in available stopping sites between 2020 and 2023. Local authorities, emboldened by new powers, accelerate evictions whilst closing sites—leaving families with nowhere legal to stop.

The data exposes the lie at the heart of Government policy:

• 4,000 authorised pitch shortfall across England (2022 Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment)

• Government funding for site provision has declined in real terms since 2010

• Capital grants for new sites were cut entirely between 2011 and 2015

The state defunds solutions whilst criminalising those affected by the resulting shortage. This isn't incompetence—it's design. The Act's purpose is not to manage encampments but to make nomadic life impossible, forcing cultural assimilation through legislative coercion.

The Planning System: Discrimination in Practice

Romani and Gypsy families who purchase land and seek planning permission face rejection rates exceeding 90%, compared to approximately 10% refusal rates for conventional housing applications. Planning committees cite "inappropriate development in the countryside" and "impact on the character of the area"—coded language masking discrimination behind ostensibly neutral planning criteria.

When planning permission is refused, families face an impossible choice:

• Abandon the land they've purchased (often their life savings)

• Live on it unlawfully and face enforcement action

• Return to the roadside and face prosecution under the Act

Every path leads to criminalisation or financial ruin. This systematic closure of legal pathways to nomadic living demonstrates that the Act is not an unfortunate side effect of land use policy, but the culmination of decades of deliberate exclusion.

The Race to the Bottom

This creates a race to the bottom, where each local authority seeks to be the most hostile environment for Travellers, ensuring they become someone else's problem. Thames Valley Police, for example, developed a protocol involving welfare assessments before enforcement action, recognising that many families have nowhere else to go. By contrast, other forces have used the Act's powers immediately and aggressively, with minimal consideration of proportionality or human rights obligations.

This inconsistency in application creates a postcode lottery of rights, where Traveller families' treatment depends on which police force area they're in. Such arbitrariness is itself incompatible with the rule of law, which requires that legal standards be applied consistently and predictably. When fundamental rights depend on the discretion of individual officers or local force policies, those rights become privileges granted or withdrawn at the state's convenience.

The Human Cost: Lives Destroyed

The consequences cascade beyond legal penalties into every aspect of life. These are not abstract statistics—they represent real children missing education, real women dying in childbirth, real families torn apart.

Education: A Lost Generation

Gypsy, Roma and Traveller children experience the lowest educational attainment of any ethnic group in the UK:

• Only 13% achieve strong passes in English and Maths GCSEs, compared to 50% nationally (Department for Education statistics)

• The Act's provisions exacerbate this inequality by making stable school attendance impossible

Teachers report that Traveller children arrive at schools mid-term, having missed weeks or months of education due to evictions. By the time they settle into the curriculum and build relationships with teachers and peers, another eviction moves them on. This cycle creates cumulative educational disadvantage that compounds across years, making it nearly impossible for affected children to catch up with their peers.

This isn't just about test scores—it's about futures stolen, potential unrealised, and a generation denied the tools to advocate for their own rights.

Health: A Public Health Crisis

Health inequalities are equally stark and deadly:

• Gypsy and Traveller life expectancy is 10-12 years lower than the national average

• Traveller women are 20 times more likely to experience maternal mortality (Confidential Enquiry into Maternal Deaths)

• Gypsy and Traveller women have the highest rates of anxiety and depression of any ethnic group (University of Sheffield research)

The Act's enforcement disrupts antenatal care, making it difficult for pregnant women to maintain continuity with healthcare providers. This has direct implications for Article 2 (right to life) when read with Article 14—the state is creating conditions that foreseeably increase mortality risk for a specific ethnic group.

NHS England data shows that Traveller children have vaccination rates 15-20% lower than national averages, not due to vaccine hesitancy but because constant moves make completing vaccination schedules impossible. This creates public health risks that affect both Traveller and settled communities, demonstrating how discrimination harms everyone.

Constant evictions and insecure accommodation are identified as primary contributing factors to mental health crises. When your home can be seized and you can be fined thousands of pounds simply for existing, the psychological toll is immense and documented.

Policing: Trust Destroyed

The Traveller Movement's 2023 survey found 78% of Romani and Gypsy respondents felt the Act had worsened their relationship with police, with many reporting harassment and discriminatory application of the new powers. This breakdown in trust has implications for public safety—communities experiencing discrimination don't report crimes or cooperate with investigations.

The Irish Traveller Movement in Britain documented cases where families were evicted from unauthorised sites and directed to authorised sites with no available pitches, then threatened with prosecution under the Act when they had no choice but to stop elsewhere. This circular persecution—punishing people for the consequences of state policy failure—exemplifies the Act's cruelty.

What Must Happen Now

The High Court has spoken. Parliament must listen. The Act's discriminatory provisions must be repealed, and the Government must commit to:

Immediate Actions:

• Suspend enforcement of Part 4 pending legislative reform

• Issue binding guidance to police forces prohibiting discriminatory application

• Establish independent monitoring of all enforcement actions with ethnic data collection

• Provide emergency funding to local authorities to prevent further site closures

• Long-term Structural Reform:

• Statutory duty on local authorities to provide adequate site provision, with ring-fenced funding

• Reform the planning system to eliminate discriminatory rejection rates for Traveller applications

• Establish a Traveller Accommodation Commissioner with enforcement powers

• Invest in negotiated stopping arrangements and transit sites as alternatives to criminalisation

• Mandatory cultural competency training for police, local authority officers, and planning committees

• Legislative Action:

• Repeal Part 4 entirely and replace it with a framework that respects nomadic life

• Amend Part 3 to remove vague concepts like "serious annoyance" and establish clear, proportionate thresholds

• Enshrine explicit protections for homeless people living in vehicles

• Create legal pathways for temporary stopping that don't require planning permission

• The Broader Fight: Solidarity Against State Violence

This Act is not an isolated aberration—it's part of a broader authoritarian turn in British governance. The Nationality and Borders Act 2022 criminalises asylum seekers. The Public Order Act 2023 further restricts protest rights. The Online Safety Act 2023 threatens free expression. The Illegal Migration Act 2023 violates refugee rights.

Each piece of legislation targets a different marginalised group, but the logic is identical: criminalise those the state finds inconvenient, expand police powers, erode judicial oversight, and present repression as common sense.

The strategy relies on division—convincing housed communities that Travellers are the problem, convincing the employed that protesters are the problem, and convincing citizens that migrants are the problem. But the actual problem is a state that responds to social issues with criminalisation rather than solutions, that defunds services, then punishes those affected by the defunding, that creates a hostile environment, and then blames those struggling to survive in it.

Solidarity is not abstract—it's strategic. When Traveller rights are attacked, housed people must recognise that the same logic will be turned on them. When protest is criminalised, those who don't demonstrate must understand that dissent is being eliminated for everyone. When asylum seekers are dehumanised, citizens must see that state violence respects no boundaries once normalised.

Why This Matters to Everyone

You might not be Romani. You might never attend a protest. You might have secure housing. But the precedent being set affects you.

When a High Court declares legislation discriminatory and Parliament ignores it, the rule of law becomes optional. When police can seize your home for the crime of existing, property rights mean nothing. When "serious annoyance" justifies arrest, free expression is dead. When the state can create a crisis and then criminalise its victims, no one is safe.

The Act reveals the truth about how power operates in Britain: minority rights are negotiable, judicial oversight is advisory, and human rights are privileges the state grants or revokes at will.

This should terrify everyone, regardless of ethnicity, housing status, or political activity. Because once the principle is established that the state can ignore courts, criminalise cultures, and punish poverty, there's no limiting principle. Today it's Travellers. Tomorrow it's whoever the Daily Mail decides is undesirable.

The Historical Context: This Has Happened Before

Romani people have faced systematic persecution for centuries. The Porajmos—the Romani Holocaust—saw between 220,000 and 500,000 Roma murdered by the Nazis, yet this genocide receives minimal recognition in Holocaust education. Post-war Europe offered no reparations, no recognition, no justice.

In Britain, the Caravan Sites Act 1968 imposed a duty on local authorities to provide sites, recognising Traveller needs. But the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 repealed that duty whilst simultaneously criminalising unauthorised camping. The current Act continues this trajectory—removing support whilst increasing criminalisation.

This is not new. It's the latest iteration of a centuries-old project: the elimination of Romani culture through legislative force.

The difference now is that we have human rights frameworks, equality law, and judicial recognition of discrimination. The question is whether those protections mean anything when challenged by political will.

What You Can Do

Individual Actions:

• Contact your MP demanding repeal of Part 4 and reform of Part 3
• Support organisations like Friends, Families and Travellers, The Traveller Movement, and Irish Traveller Movement in Britain
• Challenge anti-Traveller prejudice in your communities, workplaces, and social circles
• Educate yourself about Romani history and culture—read Romani writers, support Romani artists
• Attend local planning meetings when Traveller applications are considered and speak in support
• Collective Actions:
• Join or support campaigns for legislative reform
• Participate in solidarity actions with Traveller communities facing eviction
• Build coalitions between Traveller rights groups, housing campaigns, and civil liberties organisations
• Document the enforcement of the Act and share evidence of discriminatory application
• Pressure local authorities to provide sites rather than pursue evictions

Professional Actions:

• Lawyers: Offer pro bono representation to families facing prosecution
• Healthcare workers: Advocate for continuity of care and outreach services
• Teachers: Develop flexible attendance policies and culturally appropriate curriculum
• Journalists: Report on the Act's impact beyond stereotypes and sensationalism
• Researchers: Document health, education, and social outcomes to build the evidence base

Conclusion: The Fight Continues

The High Court ruling is significant, but it's not a victory. It's an opening—a legal acknowledgement that this Act violates fundamental rights. What happens next depends on political pressure, public mobilisation, and sustained advocacy.

Parliament can ignore the ruling. The Government can continue enforcement. Local authorities can accelerate evictions. Or we can build a movement powerful enough to force change.

The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 is discriminatory, disproportionate, and designed to erase Romani and Gypsy culture. It fails every test of proportionality, violates equality law, and creates conditions that foreseeably increase mortality risk for a protected ethnic minority.

This is not hyperbole. This is a documented fact, recognised by the High Court, evidenced by data, and experienced daily by thousands of families.

The question now is simple: Will we accept a Britain where ethnic minorities can be legislated out of existence, where courts can be ignored, and where human rights are conditional?

Or will we fight back?

The answer must be collective, sustained, and uncompromising. Because this Act is not just about Travellers—it's about what kind of society we're willing to accept. And if we accept this, there's no limit to what comes next.

The fight continues. Join it.