Curfew Orders: The Arguments For
| Author | W.F. Bullock,W.M. Tildesley |
| Published date | 01 December 1983 |
| DOI | 10.1177/026455058303000407 |
| Date | 01 December 1983 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
139
Curfew
Orders:
The
Arguments
For
W.
M.
Tildesley
&
W.
F.
Bullock
Court
Clerks,
Mansfield
Magistrates’
Court
A
legal
analysis
of
the
new
Night
Restriction
Order,
the
policy
intentions,
the
potential
advantages
and
the
implications
for
Supervision.
It
has
been
suggested
in
some
quarters
that
the
Criminal
Justice
Act,
1982
ought
to
be
renamed
as
the
‘Magistrates’
Association
Bill’
in
order
to
reflect
the
true
influence
of
the
views
of
the
Magistracy
on
the
drafting
of
the
1982
Act.
This
alternative
title
may be
a
matter
of dispute,
however
the
’night
restriction
requirement’
unquestionably
owes
its
existence
to
the
considerable
efforts
of
the
Association.
The
curfew,
as
it
was
then
known,
had
humble
origins
emanating
from
a
proposal
of
their
Hertfordshire
branch.
It
was
taken
up
and
piloted
through
Parliament
by
the
MP
for
Hemel
Hempstead.
The
curfew
clause
attracted
formid-
able
opposition,
not
only
from
within
both
Houses
but
also
from
a
large
number
of influential
groups
including
the
Association
of
County
Councils,
BASW
and
NAPO.
The
night
restriction
requirement
is
certainly
a
controversial
piece
of
legislation,
and
in
view
of
this
it
is
necessary
to
examine
and
explore
its
implications,
with
the
intention
that
issues
such
as
its
possible
use
and
feasibility
in
terms
of
compliance
can
be
clarified.
The
Law
Essentially
the
1982
Act
permits
a
court,
when
dealing
with
ajuvenile
in
criminal
proceedings
to
attach
a
condition
to
a
supervision
order,
which
prohibits
that juvenile
from
leaving
a
certain
place
or
places,
one
of
which
must
be
the
place
where
he
lives,
dunng
specified
times,
not
exceeding
ten
hours
on
any
day
and
between
6pm
and
6am
on
stipulated
days.
The
juvenile
may
leave
the
place
during
the
stipulated
hours
if
he
is
accompanied
by
either
his
parent,
or
supervisor
or
a
person
designated
by
the court
order.
The
requirement
will
be
for
a
limited
duration,
not
exceeding
30
days
in
total
nor
operating
on
any
day
outside
of the
first
three
months
of
the
supervision
order.
The
original
curfew
clause
was
extensively
modified
on
its
passage
through
Parliament.
it
is
our
opinion
that
it
is
important
to
outline
bnefly
these
modifications,
if only
to
dispel
any
allegatlons
that
due
consideration
was
not
given
by
the
legis-
lature
to
the
drafting
of this
new
power.
The
initial
proposal
envisaged
that
the
curfew
would
be
a
free
standing
power,
that
is
a
sentence
in
its
own
nght,
and
available
to
the
courts
when
dealing
with
offenders
between
the
ages
of 10
and
21.
The
responsibility
for
enforcement
would
be
in
the
hands
of
the
police,
who
would
be
given
a
power
of
arrest
in
cases
where
they
reasonably
suspected
a
breach
of the
order.
An
offender
found
in
breach
would
be
liable
to
be
dealt
with
for
the
original
offence
when
the
curfew
sentence
was
passed.
The
duration
of the
order
could
be
for
up
to
42
days
and
the
hours
ranged
from
6pm
to
6am
on
weekdays
whilst
at
weekends
between
noon
and
6am.
It
is
evident
that
considerable
changes
were
wrought
on
the
initial
proposal
ranging
form
the
cosmetic
exercise
of
a
change
in
name
to
trans-
ferring
responsibility
for
enforcement
from
the
police
to
the
local
authority
or
probation.
Opposition
to
the
police
having
the
enforcing
role
was
justified
on
the
grounds
that
it
would
jeopardize
the
relations
between
the
young
and
the
police,
in
that
there
was
a
possibility
of
an
over-
zealous
use
of the
powers
by
the
police.
This
may
appear
iromc
to
probation
officers
and
social
workers
who
also fear
that
their
relationships
with
their
clients
may
be
undermined
by
the
sanctions
of
the
mght
restriction
requirement.
However,
there
is,
we
submit,
a
distmction
between
the
police
having
the
burden
of
securing
compliance
with
the
requirement
as
opposed
to
probation
officers
and
social
workers
being
responsible.
This
distinction
is
rooted
in the
practicalities
of enforcement,
which
makes
it
preferable
that
a
night
restriction
requirement
be
part
of
a
supervision
order
as
agamst
a
free
standing
power,
a
point
which
is
expanded
later.
Of
equal
significance
were
the
amendments
which
were
primarily
designed
to
ensure
that
the
power
was
properly
used
by
the
courts
and
which
the
Government
hoped
would
guarantee
the
via-
To continue reading
Request your trial