R v Dean Boness; R v Shaun Anthony Bebbington

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
CourtCourt of Appeal (Criminal Division)
JudgeLORD JUSTICE HOOPER,Mr Justice Pitchers
Judgment Date14 October 2005
Neutral Citation[2005] EWCA Crim 2395
Docket NumberCase No: 200500/A8 Case Nos. 0500522A9 0500542A9 0500583A9 0500619A9 0500627A9 0500628A9 0500630A9 0502901A9 0502903A9 0502905A9
Date14 October 2005

[2005] EWCA Crim 2395

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE

COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)

ON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT AT WINCHESTER

HIS HONOUR JUDGE HOOTON

S2004/0171/0188

ON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT AT CHESTER

HIS HONOUR JUDGE WOODWARD

T20040437

Before:

Lord Justice Hooper

Mr Justice Roderick Evans and

Mr Justice Pitchers

Case No: 200500/A8 Case Nos. 0500522A9 0500542A9 0500583A9 0500619A9 0500627A9 0500628A9 0500630A9 0502901A9 0502903A9 0502905A9

Between:
Dean Boness
and
Shaun Anthony Bebbington
Mark Graham Bateman
Lee William Schofield
Ian Jeremy Stuart Bruce
Dale Anthony Cooper
Howard John Stocking
Thomas Philip Sheridan
Russell Keeley
Thomas Turner
John O'hanlon
and
The Crown

MR J.G.J. SHARP for the APPELLANT DEAN BONESS

MR M SULLIVAN AND MR J REES for the RESPONDENT APPEAL OF DEAN BONESS

MR G P HENNELL FOR ALL APPELLANTS OTHER THAN DEAN BONESS

LORD JUSTICE HOOPER
1

On 7 April 2005 we reduced the sentence of imprisonment passed on the appellant Dean Boness and adjourned the appeal against the making of an anti-social behaviour order ("ASBO") to enable the CPS to instruct counsel who would be able to give us both general assistance about ASBOs and specific assistance about the ASBO in this case. We resumed the hearing on 5 July 2005 and announced, at the conclusion, that the ASBO was quashed for reasons which we would give later. Mr Rees had prepared a comprehensive skeleton argument and we are particularly grateful to him for his help and to those in the Home Office who have assisted him. We have incorporated much of what he wrote into the judgment.

2

On 5 July we also heard the appeals of Shaun Anthony Bebbington and others. We granted leave to appeal and any necessary extensions of time. At the conclusion of the hearing we announced our decision to reduce the sentence of 2 years imprisonment passed on Lee William Schofield and substitute for it a sentence of 18 months imprisonment. We took the view that a sentence of that length was sufficient. That was the only sentence of imprisonment which we were asked to consider (the other appellants had served their sentences). We quashed all the ASBOs other than those in respect of Schofield and Ian Jeremy Stuart Bruce. In these two cases we announced that we would alter the terms of the orders substantially but, given that we needed further material, we said that the precise detail of the amended orders would be announced with our reserved judgment. We have now received that detail.

Boness

3

On 7 April Mr Justice Pitchers gave the following reasons for reducing the sentence of imprisonment passed on Boness:

"1. This 18 year old appellant pleaded guilty to one count of dwelling house burglary and one of the handing stolen goods in the Basingstoke Magistrates' Court and was committed to the Crown Court for sentence. On 17th December 2004 at the Crown Court at Winchester he was sentenced to a total of three years' custody and made subject to an Anti-Social Behaviour Order for a period of five years to run from the date of his release.

2. The events of burglary were committed during the morning of 23rd October 2004 at an unoccupied house in Basingstoke. The appellant and another entered through a kitchen window and carried out an untidy search, stealing items to the value of £4,800, some of which were of great sentimental value to the owner. When the appellant was arrested a watch which had been taken during the burglary was recovered from him.

3. There was another burglary the next day from a house in Basingstoke. When the appellant was arrested, his home was searched and property from that burglary was recovered. He admitted buying these items knowing they were stolen.

4. The appellant has a number of previous convictions. He was before the courts on six occasions during 2002, 2003 and 2004 for offences involving vehicle crime, attempted burglary, an offence of violence, handling stolen goods and using threatening behaviour. He received a series of community orders and in respect of two of them he was in breach by reason of these offences.

5. The judge heard evidence in addition to that which he found sufficient to make the ASBO as we have indicated. That, as we have also indicated, will be considered in detail and in principle on a later occasion.

6. For the purposes of today's hearing we deal simply with the custodial sentence. It is argued by counsel that the sentence of three years was too long following a very early plea of guilty. Applying the principles contained in the well-known case of McInerney we are satisfied that this sentence for offences in respect of which early pleas had been entered is too long. Bearing in mind the clear refusal of the appellant to comply with community orders, a sentence of custody was inevitable.

7. However, the dwelling house burglary, although of quite high value and causing considerable distress, fell into the category of an offence committed by a first time burglar, albeit with those two aggravating features. There was also the receiving of stolen goods which the appellant must have known had come from a dwelling house burglary. The total sentence appropriate for that offending, in our judgment, would be one of 18 months.

8. We therefore allow the appeal to the extent of reducing the sentences to 18 months and six months concurrently. To that extent, as we say, the appeal in relation to the custodial term is allowed. …"

4

The ASBO was in the following form:

"The court found that

(i) The defendant had acted in an anti-social manner which caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to one or more persons not of the same household as himself as shown by:

(a) The present conviction;

(b) His previous convictions; and

(c) The summary of anti-social behaviour acts set out in the request form attached

And that

(ii) an order was necessary to protect persons in England and Wales from further anti-social acts by him.

It is ordered that the defendant, Dean Boness is prohibited from:

In England and Wales:

Entering any public car park within the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council area, except in the course of lawful employment.

Entering any land or building on the land which forms a part of educational premises except as an enrolled pupil with the agreement of the head of the establishment or in the course of lawful employment.

In any public place, wearing, or having with you anything which covers, or could be used to cover, the face or part of the face. This will include hooded clothing, balaclavas, masks or anything else which could be used to hide identity, except that a motorcycle helmet may be worn only when lawfully riding a motorcycle.

Having any item with you in public which could be used in the commission of a burglary, or theft of or from vehicles except that you may carry one door key for your house and one motor vehicle or bicycle lock key. A motor vehicle key can only be carried if you are able to inform a checking officer of the registration number of the vehicle and that it can be ascertained that the vehicle is insured for you to drive it.

Having possession of any article in public or carried in any vehicle, that could be used as a weapon. This will include glass bottles, drinking glasses and tools.

Remaining on any shop, commercial or hospital premises if asked to leave by staff. Entering any premises from which barred.

Entering upon any private land adjoining any dwelling premises or commercial premises outside of opening hours of that premises without the express permission of a person in charge of that premises. This includes front gardens, driveways and paths. Except in the course of lawful employment.

Touching or entering any unattended vehicle without the express permission of the owner.

Acting or inciting others to act in an anti-social manner, that is to say, a manner that causes or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to one or more persons not of the same household.

Congregating in groups of people in a manner causing or likely to cause any person to fear for their safety or congregating in groups of more than SIX persons in an outdoor public place.

Doing anything which may cause damage.

Not being anywhere but your home address as listed on this order between 2330 hours and 0700 hours or at an alternative address as agreed in advance with the prolific and priority offender officer or anti-social behaviour co-ordinator at Basingstoke Police Station.

Being carried on any vehicle other than a vehicle in lawful use.

Being in the company of Jason Arnold, Richard Ashman, Corrine Barlow, Mark Bicknell, Joseph (Joe) Burford, Sean Condon, Alan Dawkins, Simon Lee, Daniel (Danny) Malcolm, Michael March or Nathan Threshie.

This order to run for 5 years after release from custody."

Bebbington and others

5

Regina v Shaun Anthony Bebbington (21), Mark Graham Bateman (19); Lee William Schofield (37); Ian Jeremy Stuart Bruce (now 36); Dale Anthony Cooper (19); Howard John Stocking (19); Thomas Philip Sheridan (17); Russell Keeley (now 20); Thomas Turner (now 18) and John O'Hanlon (17)

6

On 13 September 2004 at the Crown Court at Chester Bateman, Bruce, Cooper, Stocking, Sheridan, Keeley, Turner and O'Hanlon pleaded guilty. On 17 November 2004 Bebbington pleaded guilty on re-arraignment. On 5 January 2005 Schofield was convicted. On 7 January 2005 (H.H.Judge Woodward) they were sentenced as follows:

Bebbington

Threatening behaviour – Community Punishment Order for 160 hours; anti-social behaviour order for 4 years.

Bateman

Affray – 5 months detention in a young offender institution; anti-social behaviour order for 8 years

Schofield

Affray – 2 years...

To continue reading

Request your trial
36 cases
  • The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v Jamie Thorpe
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 18 November 2015
    ...in a similar way to the approach taken to the making of an Anti Social Behaviour Order under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 in R v. Boness and others [2006] 1 Cr App R(S) 120. That provision is different from the 1989 Act and enables a court to exercise a discretion to make a very wide var......
  • R v W and Another
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
    • 28 March 2006
    ...be followed by sentencing judges when an ASBO is sought. There is a most comprehensive consideration of the principles in the case of R v Boness and others: [2005] EWCA Crim 2395. The judgment of the court was given by Hooper LJ. He reviewed many of the cases in the Court of Appeal Criminal......
  • R v H
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
    • 2 February 2006
    ...is a distinct point which does not arise here. The principle is covered by two decisions of this Court, R v Kerby [2005] EWCA Crim 1228 and R v Boness [2005] EWCA Crim 2395. As we repeat, that is a distinct principle which relates to the circumstances in which it is proper to make an ASBO, ......
  • R v Johannus Victor Francis
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
    • 4 September 2006
    ...this morning Mr Thomas has urged, first of all, that there was no need for the imposition of an ASBO. He has reminded us in the context of R v Boness [2005] EWCA Crim 2395 that necessity is the test and proportionality must thereafter follow. 12 We have come to the conclusion that it was en......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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