DPP v T

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeLord Justice Richards
Judgment Date05 April 2006
Neutral Citation[2006] EWHC 728 (Admin)
Docket NumberCase No: CO/9587/2005
CourtQueen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
Date05 April 2006

[2006] EWHC 728 (Admin)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

DIVISIONAL COURT

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

Before:

Lord Justice Richards and

Mr Justice David Clarke

Case No: CO/9587/2005

Between:
Crown Prosecution Service
Appellant
and
Michael T
Respondent

Charles Garside QC (instructed by Chief Crown Prosecutor, CPS, Manchester)for the Appellant

Adam Fullwood (instructed by Kaufman and Company) for the Respondent

Lord Justice Richards
1

This is the judgment of the court, to which both members have contributed. The respondent to the appeal is a minor, not to be identified in any report of these proceedings.

2

This is a prosecution appeal by case stated from a decision of District Judge Alan Berg sitting in the Manchester City Youth Court on 25 September 2005 when he dismissed a charge against the respondent Michael James T of breach of an anti-social behaviour order (ASBO) on the ground that the relevant provision of the ASBO was unenforceable and void.

The factual background

3

The prosecution arose in this way. On 21 October 2003, on an application by Manchester City Council, also before District Judge Berg, an ASBO of 2 years' duration was made in respect of this young man, who was born on 11 August 1990 and was then aged 13 years 2 months.

4

From the preamble to the order it appears that the court made the necessary determinations which are prerequisites for the making of an ASBO under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. It adjudged that the respondent had acted in an anti-social manner, within the definition contained in section 1C of the Act itself, "that is to say, in a manner that caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to one or more persons not of the same household as himself". And it adjudged that the order was necessary to protect persons in the City of Manchester local government area from further anti-social acts by him.

5

In the subsequent appeal to the Crown Court, however, the ASBO was treated as having been made "by consent". The respondent's mother contended that she had agreed to it, feeling under pressure at the court where she had just met counsel for the first time. It was said that the District Judge made the order on a consideration of the papers and without hearing any evidence. In view of the subsequent history it is not necessary for this court to consider whether or not this was in fact so.

6

The order itself was in the following terms:

"On the complaint of the Council of the City of Manchester, Town Hall, Albert Square, Manchester, M60 2LA

It is adjudged that this Order is necessary to protect persons in the City of Manchester local government area from further anti-social acts by him/her.

MICHAEL T shall not, by himself or by instructing, encouraging or inciting any other person:

1. Act in an anti-social manner in the City of Manchester.

2. Use abusive, insulting, offensive, threatening or intimidating language or behaviour in a public place or in any place to which the or to which the (sic) public has access. Approach, threaten, intimidate, or communicate directly or indirectly with …[there followed a list of names]

3. Enter the area in red on the plan attached, MARKED A

4. Congregate in a group numbering greater than three persons in the area marked red on Map B.

5. Associate in any way in a public place, or a place to which the public has access, with …[there followed a list of names] or any of them in the area marked in red on Map B.

The order shall continue from the date of this order until midnight on 24 October 2005.

NOTE: If without reasonable excuse the Defendant does anything which he is prohibited from doing by this order, he shall be liable on conviction to a term of imprisonment not exceeding five years or to a fine or to both."

7

Paragraphs 2 to 5 of the order were clearly tailored to fit the respondent's individual case and no question arises in this court in relation to those paragraphs. The problem which faces this court arises from paragraph 1, that the respondent shall not "act in an anti-social manner in the City of Manchester". The principal argument before us arises from the words "act in an anti-social manner", but it is noticeable that the wide geographical scope of this prohibition contrasts strikingly with the very specific geographical limits set in the remaining paragraphs.

8

On 19 July 2004 the respondent sought to appeal to Manchester Crown Court against the making of the ASBO. Counsel for the City Council took the point that the court could not hear an appeal against an ASBO made by consent, and the court accepted this submission and struck out the appeal.

9

The respondent sought judicial review of this decision and on 7 June 2005 it was quashed by Moses J in the Administrative Court ([2005] EWHC 1396 Admin). The City Council did not resist the quashing order, despite having taken the point in the court below. This led Moses J to remark:

"It is all the more unfortunate that it appears to be their counsel who triggered the decision of the Recorder and this application. The time and money that this has taken would have been far better spent, firstly, in considering the merits of the Anti-Social Behaviour Order, and, secondly, in using those funds for the excellent work undertaken by the many people involved in considering the making of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders and the teams that do so much good and hard work prior to the matter ever reaching court".

10

Moses J ordered that the appeal be relisted before the Crown Court as soon as possible. We were told that that no steps were taken to do this, and indeed that the Crown Court were never informed of the order of Moses J quashing the order of that court. This is yet another regrettable element of the unfortunate history of this case.

11

On 24 July 2005 the respondent committed an offence of interference with a motor vehicle, to which in due course he pleaded guilty and for which he was sentenced by the District Judge. He was caught on a privately installed CCTV camera in a locked back yard or back garden in which the occupiers, who had been troubled by previous intruders, kept their motor scooters. He appeared to be trying to take a motor scooter from that place, an act sufficiently covered by the offence of interfering with a motor vehicle contrary to section 9 of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981. This location was within the City of Manchester local government area, but was not within the locations specified in either of the maps (marked A and B) attached to the ASBO.

The proceedings before the District Judge

12

It was the contention of the prosecution before the District Judge that the commission of the offence constituted anti-social behaviour, causing as it did harassment, alarm or distress to the owners of that property, and thus it was a breach of paragraph 1 of the ASBO. It was not suggested that the commission of the offence fell within any of the further, more specific and targeted, provisions of the ASBO.

13

In the case stated, the District Judge set out the contentions before him by reference to the skeleton arguments which had been provided to him. The contention on the respondent's behalf was that the prohibition in paragraph 1 of the order was invalid and therefore unenforceable, being far too widely drawn. He drew an analogy with the decision of this court in R (W) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2005] EWCA Civ 1333, in which Brooke LJ and Field J held that an ASBO prohibiting the appellant from "committing any criminal offence" was far too wide. Again in that case there were other specific provisions prohibiting the appellant from a number of specific activities, properly included in the order as in the present case.

14

In support of this argument it was further argued for the respondent that the terms of the order were not sufficiently clear to enable him, a boy aged only 13 when it was made, to know what he may and may not do. The expression "not act in an anti-social manner" entirely failed this test.

15

For the prosecution it was contended that the respondent's actions on 14 July clearly amounted to acting in an anti-social manner, by reference to the definition of that term contained in the Act, in that it was behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress. The absence of those further words from the order itself did not change the nature of the prohibition. Because that definition appears in the Act, the term was easily understood by those made subject to such orders. The prosecution drew a distinction between this order and the order in R (W) referring to criminal offences, and pointed out that Brooke LJ in R (W) expressly limited his decision to cases in which the appellant was prohibited from committing any criminal offence.

16

The District Judge set out his conclusions in the case stated as follows:

"8. I heard submissions based on the skeleton arguments and considered the authorities referred to by both parties, specifically the cases of :

(a) R (on the application of W) -v- D.P.P. [2005] EWCA Civ 1333.

(b) B -v- Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset (2001) l WLR 340.

9. Additionally I considered the case of Regina -v- P (Shane Tony) (2004) EWCA Crim 287 and paid particular attention to paragraphs 19, 20 and 34 of that Judgement (sic).

10. Further, in coming to my decision, I considered the Home Office Publication 'A Guide to Anti-Social Behaviour Orders' (attached hereto) as well as Lord Justice Thomas's 'A Guide on ASBOs for Judges Sitting in the Magistrates', Crown and County Courts' of May 2005, laying particular emphasis on paragraph 2.2.

11. I was of the following opinion:

(a) That clarity was essential in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
27 cases
  • R (Revenue and Customs Commissioners) v HM Coroner for the City of Liverpool (Association of Personal Injury Lawyers intervening) [DC]
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 21 May 2014
    ...cited, were referred to in the skeleton arguments:Al-Skeini v United Kingdom (2011) 53 EHRR 589Director of Public Prosecutions v T [2006] EWHC 728 (Admin); [2007] 1 WLR 209; [2006] 3 All ER 471, DCInner West London Assistant Deputy Coroner v Channel 4 Television Corpn (Practice Note) [2007]......
  • An v Secretary of State for the Home Department
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 28 July 2010
    ...( Grafton Isaacs v Emery Robertson [1985] 1 AC 97) and anti-social behaviour orders ( Director of Public Prosecutions v T [2006] EWHC 728 (Admin), [2007] 1 WLR 209). In my judgment, these are false analogies. The statute has vested the power to make a non-derogating control order exclusive......
  • Terrence Ballard v Solicitors' Regulation Authority
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 9 February 2017
    ...it has been held that the validity of an ASBO cannot be raised collaterally before the magistrates' court trying a breach of the order. In CPS v T [2006] EWHC 728 (Admin), [2007] 1 WLR 209, giving the judgment of the court, Richards LJ stated at [27]: "… [T]he normal rule in relation to an......
  • R (Malik) v Waltham Forest Primary Care Trust
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 17 March 2006
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Challenging a Community Protection Notice: A Defence in Criminal Proceedings for Its Breach? Stannard v CPS [2019] EWHC 84 (Admin)
    • United Kingdom
    • Journal of Criminal Law, The No. 83-4, August 2019
    • 1 August 2019
    ...1 WLR 1038, the District Judge found that there was a case to answer. Moreover, in reliance uponDirector of Public Prosecutions v T [2007] 1 WLR 209, and other ‘settled case law’, she held that thevalidity of the CPN could not be raised by way of defence to a criminal prosecution for its br......
  • Legal Commentary
    • United Kingdom
    • Youth Justice No. 6-3, December 2006
    • 1 December 2006
    ...in earlier Legal Commentaries (seeStone, 2004 and 2006). The issue is worth revisiting in light of Crown Prosecution Servicev T. [2006] EWHC 728 (Admin) (April 2006) which not only illustrates the appropriateambit of an ASBO but, more importantly, clarifies the appropriate response whenbrea......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT