Page 317 - 6. 2016 Diary 1st half New 26-05-21 No Table

- 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 London Area, there is no practical way of policing the order. The breach of the
ASBO will occur at the same time as the commission of any further offence in a hotel,
guesthouse, or similar premises. The ASBO achieves nothing— if she is not to be deterred by
the prospect of imprisonment for committing the offence, she is unlikely to be deterred by the
prospect of being sentenced for breach of the ASBO. By committing the substantive offence,
she will have committed the further offence of being in breach of her ASBO, but to what
avail? The criminal statistics will show two offences rather than one. If on the other hand she
“worked” a limited number of establishments, it would be practical to supervise compliance
with the order. The establishments could be pull on notice about her and should she enter the
premises the police could be called, whether her no Live in entering the premises was honest
or not.
- In Rush 12005] EWCA Grim 1316; [2006] 1 Cr. App. R. (S.) 35 (p.200) the appellant
appealed against a sentence of 30 months’ imprisonment and an ASBO of 10 years’ duration
following a plea to burglary. The burglary involved pushing into his parents’ house (where he
no longer lived) and stealing cigarettes from a cupboard. The appellant had a history of
previous offending that was almost entirely targeted at his parents. The Court of Appeal
reduced the sentence for the burglary to 12 months’ imprisonment and the duration of the
ASBO to five years. In so doing, they said that the making of an ASBO should not be a
normal part of the sentencing process especially if the case did not involve harassment or
intimidation. Imposing an ASBO was a course to be taken in particular circumstances.