Page 34 - tmp

was not necessary where specific behaviour restrictions were in place. Brooke L.J. said
(para.[8]) that, given the offender’s previous convictions for theft, a prohibition against
committing theft “might not have been inappropriate”. We have already expressed our
reservations about such a prohibition.
In the Court expressed doubt about whether an ASBO is appropriate if the anti-social conduct
is itself a serious offence, such as robbery. The Court reviewed the propriety of making an
anti-social behaviour in respect of an appellant, aged 15 at the Lime of the offences, who
pleaded guilty to assault with intent to rob, robbery, theft, false imprisonment, and attempted
robbery. He was involved in a number of incidents in which he approached younger boys,
threatened them and in one case struck a boy with a stick and stole their mobile phones. The
appellant was made the subject of an order under S.1C of CDA 1998. The effect of the order
was Lo prevent the appellant from acting in various ways, principally excluding him from
two parks and an airport. In the course of the judgment, Henriques J. giving the judgment
observed:
“It will be readily observed from a consideration of the Home Office ‘Guide Lo anti-social
behaviour orders’ that the conduct primarily envisaged as triggering these orders was for a
less grave offence than street robbery, namely graffiti, abusive and intimidating language,
excessive noise, fouling the street with litter, drunken behaviour and drug dealing. Doubtless
in drafting that report the Home Office had in mind that courts have considerable powers to
restrain robbers. We do not go so far as to suggest that anti-social behaviour orders are
necessarily inappropriate in cases with characteristics such as the present.”
We see no reason why, in appropriate circumstances, an order should not be made of the kind
in excluding an offender from two parks and an airport if that is where he is committing
robberies (or committing other anti-social behaviour). Such an order enables those
responsible for the safety of the prescribed areas an opportunity to act before a robbery is
committed by the offender.
In Werner [2004] EWCA Grim 2931 the female appellant had committed a number of
offences over a relatively short period of time which involved stealing credit cards, a cheque
book, and other items from hotel rooms while the occupants
PART 5 © SWEET & MAXWELL
71,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton Argument (2) Pdf
Page:708
R. V DEAN BONES and Other’s
were out and using the cards to obtain services and goods. In addition to passing a sentence of
imprisonment, the judge made the appellant the subject of an ASBO under s. 1C of CDA
1998, prohibiting her from entering any hotel, guesthouse, or similar premises anywhere
within the Greater London Area, It was submitted on the appellant’s behalf that this was an
inappropriate and improper use of the power because the behaviour it sought to protect the
public from was only anti-social in the sense that all criminal offences were anti-social and it
was not the sort of behaviour that ASBOs were meant to target. The Court of Appeal declined
to express a definitive view on this issue and quashed the order on a different ground, but
they did make the following observations. The forms of conduct listed on p.8 of the 2002
Home Office guide have a direct or indirect impact on the quality of life of people living in
the community. They are different in character from offences of dishonesty committed in
private against individual victims, distressing though such offences are to the victims. The
Court said that it would not like Lo be taken to say that in no case could offences of this sort
attract such an order.
It seems to us that there is another problem with the kind of order in Werner. In the absence
of a system to warn all hotels, guesthouses, or similar premises anywhere within the Greater

Page 32 of 139