Page 303 - 6. 2016 Diary 1st half New 26-05-21 No Table

any football matches in England and Wales which were regulated for the purposes of the
Football Spectators Act 1989, entering a specified area on any day on which Chester City
were playing at home, during a period beginning three hours before kick-off and ending six
hours after kick off, attending within a 10-mile radius of any premises outside Chester at
which Chester City were playing on the day of any away match, and on any day on which
England or Wales played a regulated football match in England or Wales, going within a
three-mile radius of the stadium where the match was being played during the period
commencing three hours before kick-off and ending six hours after kick off. The orders were
to last between four years and eight years in the different cases.
Held: the power to make an anti-social behaviour order was introduced by the Crime and
Disorder Act 1998, which came into force on April 1, 1999. There were various procedures
which could lead to the making of an order, in particular one which involved an application
by a relevant authority to a magistrates’ court. The Court was concerned with the power to
make an order following a conviction for a relevant offence. The power was granted by the
Crime and Disorder Act 1998 s. 1C, as inserted by the Police Reform Act 2002, and
subsequently amended by the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003, s.86. The section provided
that if the court considered that the offender had acted, at any time since April 1, 1999, in an
anti-social manner, and that an order under the section was necessary to protect persons in
any place in England and Wales from further anti-social acts by him, the court might make an
order prohibiting the offender from doing anything described in the order. It had been held in
McCann v Manchester Crown Court [2003] 1 Cr. App. R. 27 that proceedings on complaint
under s. 1 of the Act were civil in nature, that hearsay evidence was admissible, and that the
magistrates’ court had to be satisfied to the criminal standard that the defendant had acted in
an anti-social manner. The test for whether the order was necessary
PART 5 © SWEET & MAXWELL
55,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton Argument (2) Pdf
Page: 303
R. v DEAN BONES AND OTHERS
required an exercise of judgement or evaluation. That did not require proof beyond a
reasonable doubt. In A v Acton Youth Court (unreported, April 26, 2005) it had been said
that the actual and potential consequences of an order made it particularly important that
procedural fairness should be scrupulously observed. In (Shane Tony) [2004] 2 Cr. App.
R.(S.) 63 (p.343) the Court had stated that the terms of the order must be precise and capable
of being understood by the offender, the findings of fact giving rise to the making of the order
must be recorded, the order must be explained to the offender, the exact terms of the order
must be pronounced in open court and a written order must accurately reflect the order as
pronounced. Because an order must be precise and capable of being understood, a court
should ask itself before making an order “are the terms of this order clear so that the offender
will know precisely what it is that he is prohibited from doing?” The Home Office had
published guidance on the use of anti-social behaviour orders.
H6 An order under s. 1C took effect on the day on which it was made, but a court might
provide that requirements be suspended until the offender was released from custody. The
Court had observed that where custodial sentences in excess of a few months were passed
and offenders were liable to be released on licence, the circumstances in which there would
be a demonstrable necessity to make a suspended anti-social behaviour order to take effect on
release would be limited, although there would be cases in which geographical restraints
could properly supplement licence conditions. In Vittles [2005] 1 Cr. App. R. (S.) 8 (p.3!) a
suspended order had been upheld.