The land in question has been used as a communal garden for a period exceeding 20 years and the landowners have never objected to nor put any conditions on the use of the land. The following criteria would apply when dealing with such cases.

Application for a Village
Green
The legal basis for an application for a village green comes from Section 15 of the Commons Act 2006. Subsection 2(a) states that ‘any significant number of inhabitants’ who ‘have indulged as of right in lawful sports…for a period of at least 20 years’ are capable of applying. The statute also requires them to have used the land ‘as of right’. This means the use of the land must have been done openly, without force, and without permission as set out in the case of R v Oxfordshire
County Council and Others (2000).

Subsection 2(b) requires the applicants to ‘continue’ to use the land up to the time of application. The 2006 Act, however, also provides for a period of grace of two years in the event that the use ‘as of right’ had been ended by the landowner. This
means that as residents, our clients will have a period of two years to apply for registration even if the landowner decides to stop their use of the land now.

The application is done by completing form 44 as required by Section 15 of the 2006 Act. If the application is accepted without objection, then the land will be protected by Section 12 invitees. Section 1 of the 1984 Act extends this liability to include
trespassers and people who may not necessarily have been invited to the premises.

Taking Adverse Possession
of the Land
According to Section 15 of the Limitation Act 1980, a person may apply to be registered as proprietor of any estate if he/she has been in possession of it for 12 years, although this was amended to 10 years by the Land Registration Act 2002.

The law in England and Wales provides adverse possession as a mechanism for taking land from people who don’t use it by those who make use of it. For this reason, a landowner who has not actively used his land for a period of at least of the Inclosure Act 1857. This Act prohibits actions which would interrupt the recreational use of the newly declared Village Green. Section 29 of the Commons Act 1876 also prohibits the erection of buildings on, encroachment on and interference with the Village Green.

However, registration of land as a village green may pose two main problems to landowners. The first is brought about by the two Occupiers Liability Acts 1957 and 1984. The 1957 Act imposes a duty of care on occupiers of land to their visitors and
ten years can have his land adversely possessed by someone else who has used it for the same period of time.
The above options are just two of the legal bases upon which private land
can be converted to communal use. The legislation highlights that the law
can be used to advance social interests and promote the general well-being of otherwise disadvantaged people in society and the Kent Law Clinic is a good
medium to help to facilitate such ideals.
Walker Syachalinga was the Medway Law Clinic Chair 2008-2009

All six of these cases highlight the absence of proper provision for access to justice in the cases of people who come to this country seeking respite from persecution
under the Geneva Convention 1951. It is not fair that they have to scramble around in an effort to find proper legal guidance and representation, and in the end rely upon pro bono services.

Iran and Afghanistan
In two different cases, young men from Iran and Afghanistan were granted leave to remain in the United Kingdom. The Iranian client was assisted by Clinic student Vicky
Blackwood. She helped solicitor Catherine Carpenter prepare the case and brief, on a pro bono basis, barrister Jo Wilding of Garden Court Chambers.
Second-year Clinic student Katie Lacey worked on the case of the Afghan client and attended two hearings of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal at Taylor House in London. First-year Katherine Ranharter accompanied the client to an age assessment consultation with the doctor and a solicitor in London (further details of the case are outlined below). In both of these cases our clients have been granted
five years’ leave to remain in the UK on humanitarian and asylum grounds.

The Afghan case
The young client from Afghanistan was granted five years’ leave to remain in the UK In February 2009 on the basis of threats made to him following the death of his brother. His brother was killed by the Taliban because of the fact that he had acted
as an interpreter for the occupying forces. He first came to the Law Clinic on 24 November 2008 after his previous representatives told him that his case did not pass the merits test for public funding. He had arrived in the UK in May 2008, and said that he was born in 1994, but Kent County Council had assessed his date of
birth at 1 January 1991.

Katie Lacey worked on his case with solicitor Catherine Carpenter. They instructed Jo Wilding of Garden Court Chambers to represent our client. Katie and Catherine went to two tribunal hearings at the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal at Taylor
House in London where barrister Jo Wilding represented their client, first at a Case Management Review Hearing on 8 December 2008, and then on Friday 13 February 2009 at the full hearing.

Katie and Catherine arranged for the client to undergo an age assessment in London and first-year Katherine Ranharter accompanied him to the assessment. The doctor who conducted the assessment stated that, in his opinion, their client was approximately 15 years old.

The determination of the Immigration Judge was received on 23 February 2009. She accepted that our client was the age he claimed and on that basis allowed the appeal on asylum grounds and on human rights grounds.

Another Afghan case
Clinical Option student Gabriella Mulligan worked on the case of another client from Afghanistan, from September 2007 to July 2008. He had also been refused public funding. However, the Law Clinic, through the work of Gabriella and solicitor Catherine Carpenter, obtained a favourable Counsel’s opinion on the merits of his case, from David Jones at Garden Court Chambers on a pro bono. On 23rd
February 2009 (the same day as the good news in Katie’s case) the High Court in London granted him leave to pursue a judicial review claim against the Home Office’s refusal to consider his fresh claim for asylum.

When he first came to the Law Clinic, the young Afghan client was facing imminent return to Kabul where he feared persecution. Gabriella who at the time was a second-year Clinical Option student worked on the case with Catherine and they submitted fresh evidence to the Home Office on 18th February 2008. When the
Home Office refused to consider the new evidence as a fresh claim on 23rd June 2008, Counsel’s opinion was sought and David Jones of Garden Court Chambers advised that there was a good prospect of challenging the decision by way of
Judicial Review. Public funding was sought and Hammersmith and Fulham Community Law Centre agreed to take the case in July 2008 which then led to the High Court decision. As a result the client still has a fighting chance of pursuing his case.

[NB Former Law Clinic student Lauren Stone having completed her LPC course was, in February 2009, offered a training contract in Hammersmith Law Centre.]

Sierra Leone
A young woman with a baby from Sierra Leone was refused public funding and taken on by KLC and represented by barrister Livio Zilli at Garden Court Chambers on a pro
bono basis from October 2008 to February 2009. In February 2009 she was granted public funding for her representation. Clinical Option student Selina Chan worked on the case, and with work experience student Ros Goodfellow, attended the
first Case Management Review Hearing in London, while first-year Katy Chang attended the conference with counsel in London. The solicitors who are now acting have kindly said that Selina could attend the hearing and the conference with Counsel beforehand.
Katarzyna Burdzy was Canterbury Law Clinic Chair 2008-2009