Delay over renaming of controversial Plymouth Sir John Hawkins Square

Nearly four years after council chiefs ordered the removal of two street signs at Sir John Hawkins Square, the plan to rename it “Justice Square” has been held up by yet more legal wrangles.

A cabinet meeting – held on June 9, 2020 – saw council leader Tudor Evans state the Labour led council stood in solidarity with the Black Lives Matter movement and revealed that “the council had started the process of renaming the square among a series of measures to acknowledge the ‘terrible side’ of the city’s history.”

A few day later the Assistant Chief Executive requested his staff remove the two street signs “because of fears they would either be stolen or vandalised.” Since then a political and legal row ensued with city businessman Danny Bamping challenging the council’s initial plans to rename the square to that of Plymouth Argyle’s first black player, Jack Leslie.

While his suggestion of using the name of Jack Leslie to be used for an unnamed road outside Home Park was eventually accepted – with no recognition by the council for the idea – his appeal against the process and his claims that the council had not followed proper procedures was ultimately unsuccessful and the council eventually won the legal argument.

However, a Freedom of Information Request made by PlymouthLive revealed the council had to fork out £21,933.60 in legal costs for the win which they then attempted to claw back from Mr Bamping.

Danny Bamping, near the removed sign for Sir John Hawkins Square

Meanwhile, hopes that Plymouth City Council could to bring the matter to a conclusion had fallen foul of the court action and changes of administration – until light at the end of the tunnel was seen in November 2023 when the council announced it was set to rename Sir John Hawkins Square as “Justice Square”, evidently with a nod towards the adjacent 1980s-built Plymouth Magistrates Court, the building of which had effectively led to the creation of the square and the reason it was named after the former Elizabethan-era slave trader.

At the time Councillor Chris Penberthy, Cabinet Member for Housing and Cooperative Development, said: “I’m very pleased to be able to finally move forward with the renaming of the square. We think that ‘Justice Square’ is a fitting name for the area given its obvious proximity to the court but also as a homage to the positive role the justice system plays in our society.”

Cllr Chris Penberthy in the formr Sir John Hawkins Square in Plymouth

The process in renaming the square was launched and council released a “notice of intended order” to rename the square under the Public Health Act 1925, stating that “any person who is aggrieved by the proposal should lodge an appeal by email/in writing to the Plymouth and South West Devon Magistrates Court” with a deadline of 4pm on November 29, 2023.

However, in January the council confirmed to PlymouthLive it was still awaiting a response from the court to determine whether or not an appeal hearing was taking place.

PlymouthLive has now learned that a number of people have lodged appeals ahead of the closing date. They have recently received a letter from staff from the Magistrates’ Court explaining that there was a “fee payable of £62.00 to formally lodge your appeal before the Court. This fee must be paid by the 14th February 2024”. The email went on to state “once payment has been received and verified we can then proceed list a date for the hearing at Plymouth Magistrates Court and you will be notified accordingly.”

PlymouthLive contacted Plymouth Magistrates’ Courts who explained that once they have received the payments the District Judge would then be alerted. The District Judge would then decide how long the hearing would take and a date could then be set. The court also confirmed that each individual who appealed would have to pay the £62 as they were appealing under different reasons.

PlymouthLive has learned that a barrister wrote an article in April 2022 regarding the “thorny issues” of renaming streets.

Richard Harwood KC – who went on to represent the Plymouth tree-campaigners (STRAW) in the High Court – wrote: “The ability of the Court to differ from the council in an appeal is in practice very limited.”. Noting the case of Basildon Borough Council vs James in 2015 he explained that the “High Court held that an appeal under the 1925 Act can only be upheld if the Court was satisfied that the Council’s decision was wrong”.

He later explained in the article that “as the High Court pointed out in Basildon there ‘are no statutory objectives, no statutory guidance and no policy to which the council was required to have regard or to which the court can have resort’ (at para 36 per Garnham J). This is the problem for anyone seeking to appeal a renaming decision. The Court has no criteria for deciding whether the Council were wrong. Renaming is really an administrative decision, which may have political elements (particularly if the existing name is being considered unacceptable) and practical consequences.”

Michael Smith stood before magistrates today in connection with five charges plymouth magistrates’ court generic

He added: “The Court, whether lay magistrates or a professional district judge, are likely to be deferential to that administrative/political decision. In the absence of any statutory or policy tests which the council and the court should be applying or considering, it is very difficult for a judge to say that the Council’s view is wrong, even if the judge would have made a different decision for rational reasons themselves.

“In practice an appeal is more likely to succeed where there has effectively been a public law error, such as the council not following its own procedure or leaving out an obviously relevant issue, and so the court might then make up its own mind.”

It remains to be seen whether those who are now appealing the decision to renamed Sir John Hawkins Square as Justice Square will be able to convince the court whether or not Plymouth City Council has made a public law error or failed to follow it’s own procedure.

No date has been set for the hearing.