Page 319 - 6. 2016 Diary 1st half New 26-05-21 No Table

Entering any land or building on the land which forms a part of educational premises except
as an enrolled pupil with the agreement of the head of the establishment or in the course of
lawful employment.
- As to this the respondent submits:
“It is not clear what information provided the basis for making this prohibition. There is
nothing in the appellant’s previous offending history which suggests that he engages in anti-
social behaviour in educational premises. It is submitted that the term ‘educational premises’
arguably lacks clarity; for example, does it include teaching hospitals or premises where night
classes are held? There also appears to be a danger that the appellant might unwittingly
breach the terms of the order were he, for example, to play sport on playing fields associated
with educational premises.”
- We agree with this analysis.
The order was not necessary and is, in any event, unclear.
- The third order prohibited the appellant from:
In any public place, wearing, or having with you anything which covers, or could be used to
cover, the face or part of the face. This will include hooded clothing, balaclavas, masks, or
anything else which could be used to hide identity, except that a motorcycle helmet may be
worn only when lawfully riding a motorcycle.
- The respondent submits:
“It is presumed that this prohibition was based upon the assertion that the appellant is
forensically aware and will use items to attempt to prevent detection. It is submitted that the
terms of the prohibition are too wide, resulting in a lack of clarity and consequences which
are not commensurate with the risk which the prohibition seeks to address. The phrase
“having with you anything which could be used to cover the face or part of the face” covers a
huge number of items. For example, it is not unknown for those seeking to conceal their
identity to pull up a jumper to conceal part of the face, but surely the prohibition cannot have
been intended to limit so radically the choice of clothing that the appellant can wear? It seems
that the appellant would potentially be in breach of the order were he to wear a scarf or carry
a newspaper in public.”
- We agree.
- The fourth order prohibited the appellant from:
Having any item with you in public which could be used in the commission of a burglary, or
theft of or from vehicles except that you may carry one door key for your house and one
motor vehicle or bicycle lock key. A motor
PART 5 © SWEET & MAXWELL
74,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton Argument (2) Pdf
Page: 319
R. v DEAN BONES AND OTHERS
vehicle key can only be carried if you are able to inform a checking officer of the registration
number of the vehicle and that it can be ascertained that the vehicle is insured for you to drive
it. We agree with the respondent’s submission that: the first part of this prohibition has been
drafted too widely and lacks clarity.”
The respondent points out that there are many items that might be used in the commission of
a burglary, such as a credit card, a mobile phone, or a pair of gloves. Was the appellant being
prohibited from carrying such items? If so, the order is neither clear nor proportionate,
The fifth order prohibited the appellant from:
Having possession of any article in public or carried in any vehicle, that could be used as a
weapon. This will include glass bottles, drinking glasses and tools.
- The respondent submits and we agree: