Staffordshire Moorlands District Council v Caroline Sanderson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Hickinbottom,Mrs Justice Andrews |
| Judgment Date | 19 March 2020 |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] EWHC 962 (Admin) |
| Date | 19 March 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/4233/2019 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
[2020] EWHC 962 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION DIVISIONAL COURT
IN THE MATTER OF A CASE STATED BY THE
JUSTICES FOR THE COUNTY OF STAFFORDSHIRE
Priory Court
33 Bull Street
Birmingham B4 6DS
THE RT HONOURABLE Lord Justice Hickinbottom
THE HONOURABLE Mrs Justice Andrews DBE
Case No: CO/4233/2019
Gordon Wignall (instructed by) for the Appellant
Rupert Jones (instructed by Stevens Solicitors & Advocates) for the Respondent
This is an appeal by way of case stated against a decision by Staffordshire Magistrates' Court on 22 July 2019 to allow an appeal by the respondent, Mrs Sanderson, against a Community Protection Notice (“CPN”) issued by the appellant to her in respect of the behaviour of her son X, a child.
The question that this court has been asked to determine is whether the Justices were right to conclude that on the proper construction of section 43 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, (“the 2014 Act”) there is no power to issue a CPN in the name of an individual (parent) concerning the conduct of a different individual (their child)?
Although the question was posed in the specific context of parent and child, both counsel accepted that the construction of s.43 adopted by the Justices would preclude the service of a CPN on person A in respect of anti-social behaviour by person B in any circumstances in which A might be in a position to, and expected to, exert control over B.
In my judgment, for the reasons set out below, the question should be answered in the affirmative. The Justices construed s.43 correctly, and this appeal should therefore be dismissed.
THE FACTS
The factual background can be stated briefly. There is no dispute that the appellant is an “authorised person” within the meaning of the 2014 Act. The appellant issued a CPN to Mrs Sanderson on 15 March 2019. X was then nearly 15 years old (his birthday is in April). The CPN followed the service of a written community protection warning on Mrs Sanderson on 19 February 2019. The warning, addressed to Mrs Sanderson, stated that an officer of the appellant was satisfied that:
“ Your conduct and behaviour at and in the vicinity of Blythe Bridge, Staffordshire is having a detrimental effect on the quality of life of others in the locality caused by your son, X, engaging in the following behaviour.”
There then followed a list of anti-social behaviour attributed to X, including getting involved in a fight, assaulting another schoolboy, setting fire to a public bench and refusing to leave a convenience store when instructed to do so by others.
The warning continued: “ this warning must be construed as formal notification to address the conduct identified.” There then followed a list of actions that Mrs Sanderson was required to take to prevent X from carrying out further acts of anti-social behaviour. I note in passing that the warning was expressed in absolute terms, instead of requiring Mrs Sanderson to take reasonable steps to prevent the specified behaviour.
The CPN referred to the written warning. It said that the warning:
“Specified that the detriment directly related to you failing to control the behaviour of your son, X, in and around Blythe Bridge, Staffordshire. Furthermore, you were given due notice that your son had engaged in specific incidents which had a detrimental impact on those in the locality.”
It then listed those incidents and added a further incident that had allegedly occurred since the warning was issued. It said that in the light of this the appellant was satisfied:
“That your persistent and/or continuing unreasonable conduct in the area of Blythe Bridge, Staffordshire as described above and in the written warning is having a detrimental impact on the quality of life of those living in the locality.”
The action that the CPN required Mrs Sanderson to take, for a period continuing until midnight on 12 April 2020, was this time expressed in terms of taking reasonable steps to prevent X from doing various things, including using offensive words or behaviour to any person in any public place or place to which the public has access in the Staffordshire Moorlands area, and “unlawfully assaulting” any person anywhere in the Staffordshire Moorlands.
Mrs Sanderson appealed to the Justices pursuant to s.46 of the 2014 Act on two grounds, namely that the notice was issued to the wrong person, and that it contained unreasonable requirements.
The Justices heard the appeal on 22 July 2019. The parties had previously agreed that there was no requirement for evidence to be called and that the Justices could determine the matter on the basis of oral submissions alone. Having heard those submissions, the Justices allowed the appeal on the basis that the appellant had no power to issue a CPN in the name of Mrs Sanderson in respect of the conduct of her son. They relied on the wording of ss.43(1) and 43(5) of the 2014 Act and supported their reasoning by reference to s.44.
THE LEGISLATION
Anti-social behaviour is defined in s.2 of the 2104 Act as:
(a) conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person,
(b) conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person's occupation of residential premises, or
(c) conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
By s.57 of the Act conduct can include a failure to act.
S.1 of the 2014 Act empowers a court to grant an injunction against a person aged ten or over if two conditions are met, namely:
(i) The court is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the person has engaged or threatens to engage in anti-social behaviour, and
(ii) The court considers it just and convenient to grant the injunction for the purpose of preventing that person from engaging in anti-social behaviour.
In the present case it would have been open to the appellant to seek such an injunction against X, but it chose not to do so.
S.22 of the 2014 Act gives the court the power to make criminal behaviour orders in respect of offenders who have been convicted of a criminal offence, including young offenders. If the offender is under the age of 18 the court must find out the views of the local youth offending team before making such an order.
Part 4 of the 2014 Act is headed, “Community Protection.” S. 43 contains the power to issue a CPN:
(1) An authorised person may issue a community protection notice to an individual aged 16 or over, or a body, if satisfied on reasonable grounds that:
(a) the conduct of the individual or body is having a detrimental effect, of a persistent or continuing nature, on the quality of life of those in the locality, and
(b) the conduct is unreasonable.
(3) A community protection notice is a notice that imposes any of the following requirements on the individual or body issued with it:
(a) a requirement to stop doing specified things;
(b) a requirement to do specified things;
(c) a requirement to take reasonable steps to achieve specified results.
(4) The only requirements that may be imposed are ones that are reasonable to impose in order:
(a) to prevent the detrimental effect referred to in subsection (1) from continuing or recurring, or
(b) to reduce that detrimental effect or to reduce the risk of its continuance or recurrence.
(5) A person (A) may issue a community protection notice to an individual or body (B) only if:
(a) B has been given a written warning that the notice will be issued unless B's conduct ceases to have the detrimental effect referred to in subsection (1), and
(b) A is satisfied that, despite B having had enough time to deal with the matter, B's conduct is still having that effect.
S.44 of the 2014 Act which is entitled, “Occupiers of Premises etc.” provides that:
(1) Conduct on, or affecting, premises … that a particular person:
(a) owns,
(b) leases,
(c) occupies,
(d) controls,
(e) operates, or
(f) maintains,
is treated for the purposes of section 43 as conduct of that person.
(3) This section does not treat an individual's conduct as that of another person if that person cannot reasonably be expected to control or affect it.
By s.48 of the 2014 Act non-compliance with a CPN is a criminal offence, punishable on summary conviction by a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale in...
To continue reading
Request your trial