At the Crown Court in Taunton at a five day hearing in December 2008, the judge said that the SCC had shown themselves to be “unfocused, illogical and inconsistent”. And “we feel compelled to observe that the view held by the County Council appears to us to have been anything but consistent, at any rate up until this point, and the view that the pillars amount to an obstruction certainly does not appear to have been consistently held or expressed by SCC.”

The learned judge also said that “ We found there to be a general consensus that the actual usable width of the footpath was not reduced by the erection of the pillars, which were sufficiently wide apart to accommodate the previous usable width of the footpath at that point. As one witness with 18 years’ walking experience in the area, Martyn Helliwell JP, told us: "Barcroft Lane after the bridge was never wider to walk upon than the tarmac lane leading to the property." Others testified to the passable width being no greater than that currently available between the gate pillars.

After all this encouragement he still ordered the SCC to remove the gates and central pillar (see order here). And added that “We recognise also that it remains open to an individual to apply under section 130B for the removal of those parts of the structure which remain on the highway. (the two outside pillars). We anticipate and hope that any such individual would be discouraged from doing so by the terms of this judgment.”

But sadly not

The High Court hearing took place on January 25th-26th 2010 before Mr Justice Cranston. The Council appealed to the High Court for the whole structure to be taken down to provide a nine metre wide footpath (this is not a joke). Nor to pay any costs they were ordered to pay. The only part they have complied with is to erect a finger post, outside the gates in late August 2009.

The Herricks appealed because it was found in the last judgment that the gate pillars did not restrict the ‘useable width’ of the footpath that previously existed and was used by the public. In addition SCC had granted lawful authority for the gates at the time Mr. Kidner prosecuted them.

To see the full judgment please click here.