R (Stanley and Others) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Kennedy,Mr Justice Treacy,LORD JUSTICE KENNEDY |
| Judgment Date | 07 October 2004 |
| Neutral Citation | [2004] EWHC 2229 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/7001/2003 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 07 October 2004 |
[2004] EWHC 2229 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(DIVISIONAL COURT)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Lord Justice Kennedy And
Mr Justice Treacy
Case No: CO/7001/2003
Michael Fordham (instructed by Liberty) for the appellants
Christopher Johnston (instructed by D.S. Hamilton of Director of Legal Services, Metropolitan Police) for the first defendant
David Carter (instructed by Terry Osborne, Borough Solicitor) for the second defendant
Mrs Wendy Outhwaite (instructed by Treasury Solicitor) for the intervening party
The three claimants, Jovan Stanley, William Marshall and Martin Kelly seek judicial review of a decision made by the representatives of the London Borough of Brent and the Metropolitan Police on or about 2 nd October 2003 to distribute leaflets and publicise other material carrying the claimants' images, names and ages, and details of anti-social behaviour orders issued against them. The publicity material also identified four other young men who are not party to these proceedings. The claimants seek a declaration that the publicity complained of was unlawful and in breach of their rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. They also claim damages for violation of their Convention rights. Although these proceedings are not directly concerned with the reasons why the ASBOs were made, the history is relevant when evaluating the propriety of the steps taken by the defendants after the orders were obtained, and I will therefore summarise that history.
History.
From August 2000 onwards there were serious complaints of anti-social behaviour being made by, in particular, residents of Brill House, a council-owned block of ten flats on a small estate between Aylesbury Street and Verney Street in the London Borough of Brent. The location can be found on the plan in the leaflet which is annex 1 to this judgment.
The anti-social behaviour complained of included youths assembling and loitering in and around the block, throwing stones at each other from balconies, causing damage to windows and motor vehicles, running up and down stairs shouting and screaming, throwing rubbish and spitting from balconies, leaving bicycles in communal areas obstructing residents, playing loud music and having noisy parties until the early hours of the morning, smoking drugs in communal areas, gaining access to communal areas by damaging doors and windows, leaving litter in communal areas, starting fires in the communal stairwell, defacing stairwell walls with graffiti, letting off fireworks in communal areas, playing football in communal areas causing damage to windows, abusing and threatening residents and visitors to the building.
In January 2002 the local authority prepared a Crime and Disorder Audit. It showed a complex picture, but amongst other things it was noted that 85% of residents in the five most disadvantaged areas of Brent did not leave their homes at night due to the fear of crime. In July 2002 the local authority published its Crime and Disorder Reduction and Community Safety Strategy, which was agreed with the Metropolitan Police. Together they formed the Brent Crime and Disorder Community Safety Partnership, and at paragraph 10.4 the strategy stated that it included –
"A commitment to publicise and promote the action and success that the Crime and Disorder Reduction and Community Safety Partnership achieves. This will emphasise the importance that each partnership agency places upon crime reduction and community safety and may also serve to reduce the fear of crime by demonstrating to the community that their crime concerns are being effectively addressed."
The publication of the strategy did not of itself have any effect on the problems experienced by the residents of Brill House. There were more disturbing reports in August 2002, including a report that when representatives of a company were assessing where to put covert cameras in Brill House they were threatened by youths and required to leave the site. A representative of Warlite Security had a similar experience at about 3 pm on 6 th September 2002. Inspector Dale had just taken over as the police officer responsible for tackling crime and disorder in the area, and from 23 rd September 2002 to 24 th March 2003 she ran Operation Shrimp, which involved an escalation of police activity, but, partly because the youths were well organised and watched out for police, the problems continued and few arrests were made.
On 2 nd October 2002 Inspector Dale met Brent Housing Partnership Neighbour Relations Team, which had been established to deal, amongst other things, with persistent anti-social behaviour. She also met Mr Daniel Jones of the Neasden Residents Association, the only resident who was at that time prepared to speak to the police on a regular basis and to make a statement, who was subjected to violence, abuse and intimidation for doing so. For his protection it was considered necessary to install a panic alarm and camera at his home.
On 6 th October 2002 graffiti discovered at Brill House depicted a tombstone with the words "rest in pieces" and named six Brent police officers.
On 14 th October 2002 it was decided to seek anti-social behaviour orders. The matter was referred to the Brent ASB group, consisting of representatives of the local authority and the police, with the police as the lead agency and Inspector Dale as the lead officer.
On 16 th October 2002 a leaflet was distributed to occupiers in which Inspector Dale, on behalf of the police, asked for information to be provided in confidence to enable action to be taken to deal with the anti-social behaviour. That prompted a mini-riot, involving a large number of youths. An unmarked police car was stoned, a firework and rocks were thrown at the police, other missiles were thrown at other police cars and so forth. The claimant Marshall was identified as one of the youths actively involved in that disturbance which resulted in one public order arrest, and eight arrests to prevent breaches of the peace.
On 22 nd October 2002 Brent ASB group formally decided to seek anti-social behaviour orders against eight individuals, including the three present claimants.
On 24 th October 2002 a male Local Authority cleaner who had been working at Brill House for about 9 years reported that the scale of anti-social behaviour had been such that for three weeks he had to be accompanied by a security guard. Thereafter he re-arranged his working day so that he went to Brill House very early in the morning when the youths were normally not to be seen, but if they were there he did not do his work.
On 27 th October 2002 a carpenter who attended at Brill House to repair the electricity cupboard was surrounded by youths and threatened. Lighting on the estate was smashed on the night it was repaired.
Because the Local Authority and Inspector Dale had no previous experience of anti-social behaviour orders Inspector Dale went in November 2002 to visit the Greater Manchester Police, and learnt, amongst other things, of the follow-up publicity by leaflet which that police force had used when an anti-social behaviour order had been obtained.
At the end of November 2002 Inspector Dale made personal contact with the residents of Brill House and the adjacent Chalfont House. They all described on-going misery and intimidation, so she called them to a meeting at Wembley Police Station on 2 nd December 2002 which eight of them attended, together with a representative of the Local Authority. The Inspector hoped to give some reassurance and to seek assistance, but she encountered hopelessness, and an over-riding feeling that to report incidents would put the residents and their families at risk with no likely gain.
On 17 th December 2002 Mr Jones was about to enter his house at 4 Verney Street when he was hit on the head by a half-brick thrown by one of the group of youths.
On 17 th April 2003 at Brent Magistrates' Court interim anti-social behaviour orders were made against seven youths. An eighth youth was in custody so no interim order was sought against him. There were breaches of those interim orders, but they were said to have had a good effect.
The hearing of the full application for anti-social behaviour orders was fixed for September 2003, and in preparation for that hearing consideration was given to the way in which the Local Authority and the police might publicise the orders if granted. Inspector Dale obtained approval from her senior officers and the Local Authority also granted its approval to the draft of the leaflet which is at annex 1, final approval being granted by both the police and the Local Authority at the end of September 2003, after the orders had been made. The orders were made on 19 th September 2003 by District Judge Marshall after a hearing lasting 15 days. Her careful judgment sets out the material facts, which include the background of convictions of each of the claimants, Stanley, Marshall and Kelly, then aged 15, 16 and 18. The proceedings were widely reported particularly in the local press, but also to some extent in the national press in September and October 2003. On 25 th September 2003 the Local Authority posted details of the proceedings on its Brain Community Website, in a form now to be found at annex 2.
On 2 nd October 2003 the leaflets (annex 1) which had been planned and approved were distributed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anthony Crook v The Chief Constable of Essex Police
...which the law must recognise and, if necessary, enforce." 51 In R (Stanley, Marshall and Kelly) v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [2005] EMLR 3, where there was publicity in respect of three individuals against whom ASBOs had been imposed, Kennedy LJ said at paragraph 40: "I accept that wh......
- London Borough of Camden v Information Commissioner
-
Criminal Labels, the European Convention on Human Rights and the Presumption of Innocence
...and Kelly) vMetropolitan Police Commission, London Borough of Brent and Secretaryof State for the Home Department (intervening) [2004] EWHC 2229 (Admin).122 ibid at [23].123 Khuzhin n 34 above at [95]–[96].Criminal Labels, Human Rights and the Presumption of Innocence© 2013 The Author. The ......
-
The Place of Shame in Responses to Anti-Social Behaviour
...of Stanley, Marshall and Kelly) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Chief Executive of London Borough of Brent [2004] EWHC 2229 (Admin). The claimants sought judicial review of a decision by a police force and local authority to distribute leaflets and publicise information cont......
-
Criminalizing Sociability through Anti-social Behaviour Legislation: Dispersal Powers, Young People and the Police
...on the Crown to prove that the child had the requisite understanding. 26 Offi cial guidance issued in the light of Stanley v Brent [2004] EWHC 2229 (Admin) ruling phasized the benefi ts of publicity for effective ASBO enforcement and public reassurance (Home Offi ce, 2005). This extends to ......
-
Anti-Social Behaviour Orders: Publicity and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights
...and Kelly) vMetropolitan PoliceCommission, London Borough of Brent and Secretary of State for the HomeDepartment (intervening) [2004] EWHC 2229 (Admin)In 2000 there began a series of complaints about the behaviour of agroup of youths on an estate in Brent. Various methods to tackle theprobl......