Challenging a Community Protection Notice: A Defence in Criminal Proceedings for Its Breach? Stannard v CPS [2019] EWHC 84 (Admin)
| Published date | 01 August 2019 |
| Date | 01 August 2019 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0022018319868319 |
| Subject Matter | Case Notes |
The Journal of Criminal Law
2019, Vol. 83(4) 307–310
Challenging a Community
ª The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
Protection Notice: A Defence
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0022018319868319
in Criminal Proceedings
journals.sagepub.com/home/clj
for Its Breach?
Stannard v CPS [2019] EWHC 84 (Admin)
Keywords
Anti-social behaviour, Community Protection Notices, breach, criminal proceedings, whether
alleged invalidity a defence
The appellant had been served with a Community Protection Notice (CPN) by a police officer pursuant to s
43 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. It contained four prohibitions, including not
to enter the area of Reading Town Centre as defined by a map (which formed part of the CPN), unless there
was a prearranged appointment with a court or probation worker. Under s 46(2) of the 2014 Act, a person
issued with a CPN has 21 days to appeal to a magistrates’ court on various grounds, including that any of the
requirements in the notice, or any periods within which or times by which they are to be complied with, are
unreasonable. The appellant did not exercise his right of appeal. Some five days after the issue of the CPN,
he was observed in the prohibited area in Reading Town Centre and arrested by the police. He subsequently
appeared before a District Judge having been charged with the summary offence of failing to comply with a
CPN contrary to s 48(1) of the 2014 Act. It was submitted on his behalf that there was no case to answer
because the CPN was invalid on account of its indefinite duration, and a term which prohibited the
appellant from being in a group of 3 or more individuals including himself. Both, it was argued, were
unreasonably wide, unnecessary and disproportionate. Applying the principles stated in R v Galbraith
[1981] 1 WLR 1038, the District Judge found that there was a case to answer. Moreover, in reliance upon
Director of Public Prosecutions v T [2007] 1 WLR 209, and other ‘settled case law’, she held that the
validity of the CPN could not be raised by way of defence to a criminal prosecution for its breach. Having
found that the CPN was in force at the relevant time, and that it had been breached, the District Judge
concluded that the appellant was guilty of a s 48(1) offence.
In the present appeal by way of case stated, the central issue for the Divisional Court to determine was
whether it was open to a defendant charged with breaching a CPN to argue by way of defence that the
notice was invalid.
Held, dismissing the appeal, that as a matter of statutory construction, it was clear that Parliament
had intended that a challenge to the validity of a CPN should not be a defence in criminal proceedings for
its breach. Where the subject of a CPN wished to mount a challenge, this could only be accomplished
either by exercising their statutory right of appeal or by seeking judicial review.
Commentary
Part 4 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 is concerned with ‘Community
protection’. Central to this is the power conferred on authorised persons, i.e. a police constable, a
308
The Journal of Criminal Law 83(4)
relevant local authority or a person...
To continue reading
Request your trial