Page 316 - 6. 2016 Diary 1st half New 26-05-21 No Table

car park and stealing various compact discs. The ASBO contained (amongst others) the
following prohibitions:
Entering any other car park whether on payment or otherwise within the counties of
Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire, or Buckinghamshire.
Trespassing on any land belonging to any person whether legal or natural within those
counties.
Having in his possession in any public place any window hammer, screwdriver, torch or any
tool or implement which could be used for the purpose of breaking into motor vehicles.”
- In respect of term 2, the Court of Appeal held that it was unjustifiably draconian and
loo wide; it would, for example, prevent the appellant from entering, even as a passenger, any
car park in a supermarket. Similar considerations
PART 5 © SWEET & MAXWELL
70,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton Argument (2) Pdf
Page:316
R. v DEAN BONES AND OTHERS
applied lo term 3.11"the appellant look a wrong turn on a walk and entered someone’s
property, he would be at risk of a five-year prison sentence. The Court of Appeal look the
view that term 4 was unacceptably wide. The meaning of the words “too! or implement” was
impossible to ascertain. Insofar as the wording of term 4 was sufficiently qualified by the
final wording “which could be used for the purpose of breaking into motor vehicles”, the
Court of Appeal observed that, effectively, the term overlaps with the offence of going
equipped.
- In IV v DPP [2005] EWHC 1333 held that a clause in an ASBO made in respect of a
young offender which prohibited him from committing any criminal offence was plainly loo
wide and unenforceable. There was a danger that W would not know what a criminal offence
was and what was not. It was well established that an order had to be clear and in terms that
would enable an individual to know what he could and could not do. A general restriction
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.”