Anti-Social Behaviour Orders: Publicity and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights
| Author | Allison Clare |
| DOI | 10.1350/jcla.69.2.97.63527 |
| Published date | 01 April 2005 |
| Date | 01 April 2005 |
| Subject Matter | Divisional Court |
Divisional Court
Anti-social Behaviour Orders: Publicity and Article 8 of
the European Convention on Human Rights
R (on the application of Stanley, Marshall and Kelly) vMetropolitan Police
Commission, London Borough of Brent and Secretary of State for the Home
Department (intervening) [2004] EWHC 2229 (Admin)
In 2000 there began a series of complaints about the behaviour of a
group of youths on an estate in Brent. Various methods to tackle the
problem proved ineffective, and by April 2003 interim anti-social behav-
iour orders (ASBOs) had been imposed on a number of those said to be
involved. Full orders were made in September 2003, and there followed
various press reports of the proceedings. The London Borough of Brent
also included details of the proceedings on its website. In October 2003,
pursuant to decisions about publicity made by Brent and the police prior
to the imposition of the final orders, leaflets were distributed which
contained photographs and personal details of the applicants together
with information about the terms of the ASBOs and the offending
behaviour. At about the same time Brent published a report of proceed-
ings in its tenants’ newsletter.
In December 2003 the three applicants commenced proceedings
seeking judicial review of the decision to publicise the imposition of
ASBOs against them. A declaration was sought that the publicity was in
breach of Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights (the
right to respect for private and family life).
The applicants argued that whilst publicity of the orders was permis-
sible, it should be restricted to that which was necessary and propor-
tionate to the legitimate aims set out under Article 8. It was said that in
this case those making the decisions about publicity had not even
considered the impact of Article 8 and therefore such legitimate aims
had not even been identified. Particular complaint was made about the
colourful language of the website entry, the use of photographs on the
leaflets and their distribution outside the immediate geographical area
identified in the orders.
Those responding argued that much of the information was already in
the public domain following the press reports of the court proceedings
and so by then there was no ‘private’ life to be respected. It was also said
that the photographs had been essential if the publicity was to assist in
enforcing the orders effectively. Whilst accepting that there was no
publication strategy in place, they argued that the publicity was pursu-
ant to legitimate aims such as restoring public confidence, assisting the
enforcement of the orders, deterring others from similar behaviour and
maintaining peace within the community.
97
To continue reading
Request your trial