Page 305 - 6. 2016 Diary 1st half New 26-05-21 No Table

should normally be exercised. This decision was in conflict with Hall |2005] 1 Cr. App. R.
(S.) 118 (p.671), but in Williams [2006] 1 Cr. App. R. f S.) 56 (p.305) the Court preferred
Kirby to Hall. The Court in the present case also agreed with Kirby. Different considerations
might apply were the maximum sentence was only a fine, but the court must still go through
all the steps to make sure that an order was necessary.
HI I The aim of an order was to prevent anti-social behaviour. What the police or other
authorities needed was to be able to lake action before the anti-social behaviour look place. If
for example a court was faced by an offender who caused criminal damage by spraying
graffiti, then the order should be aimed at facilitating action to be taken to prevent graffiti
being sprayed by him or others. An order in clear and simple terms preventing the offender
from being in possession of a can of spray paint in a public place gave the police or others
responsible for protecting property an opportunity to take action in advance of the actual
spraying and made it clear lo the offender that he had lost the right to carry such a can for the
duration of the order.
H12 In addition to the court considering that the order prohibiting the offender from doing
something was necessary to protect persons from further anti-social acts by the offender, the
terms of the order must be proportionate in the sense that they
PART 5 © SWEET & MAXWELL
57,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton Argument (2) Pdf
Page: 305
R. v DEAN BONES AND OTHERS
must be commensurate with the risk to be guarded against. This was particularly important
where the order might interfere with Convention rights protected by the Human Rights Act
1998. In considering the order made against the appellant Bones, the Court accepted that the
appellant had consistently engaged in antisocial behaviour over a period of approximately
three years. He was a persistent prolific offender. His anti-social behaviour included
threatening behaviour, vehicle crime and offences of dishonesty including burglary. He was
sentenced to a custodial sentence of three years’ detention and was thus subject to a period on
licence subject to recall or return to custody. It was far from clear that it was necessary to
make an order in respect of the appellant. Considering the detailed terms of the order, some
of the terms were unnecessary or unclear. The order would be quashed. In the case of
Bebbington and others it was not necessary to make an order in respect of all but two of the
appellants in view of their antecedent history. So far as the other two appellants were
concerned, all the prohibitions would be quashed except the prohibitions relating to attending
football matches played at the home ground of Chester City, and orders would be added in
both cases restricting the appellants concerned from entering a specified area in the vicinity
of Chester railway station on any day on which Wrexham were playing a regulated football
match away from their home stadium, during a period commencing three hours before the
beginning of that match and ending six hours after the beginning of that match.
Cases cited:
- McCann v Manchester Crown Court [2002] UKHL 39; [2003] 1 A.C. 787; [2003]
1Cr.App. R. 27 (p.419),
- Lonergan v Lewes Crown Court [2005] EWHC 457.1 W.L.R. 2570; [2005] A.C.D.
84,
- Kirby [2005] EWC1A Crim 1228.I Cr. App. R. (S.) 26 (p. 151),
- Hall [2004] EWCA Crim 2671; [2005]! Cr. App. R. (S.) 118 (p.671),
- Williams [2006] EWCA Crim 1796; [2006] 1 Cr. App. R. (S.) 56 (p.305)
References: orders under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, Current Sentencing Practice
Commentary: [2006] Crim. L.R 160