Page 321 - 6. 2016 Diary 1st half New 26-05-21 No Table

- We agree generally but we would have preferred a geographical limit so as to make it
feasible to enforce the order. Local officers, aware of the prohibition, would then have a
useful weapon to prevent the appellant committing vehicle crime. They would not have to
wait until he had committed a particular crime relating to vehicles,
- The ninth order prohibited the appellant from:
Acting or inciting others to act in an anti-social manner, that is to say, a manner that causes or
is likely to cause harassment, alarm, or distress to one or more persons not of the same
household.
- The respondent submits that this was a proper order to make and is in accordance with
the Home Office guidance. We would prefer some geographical limit, in the absence of good
reasons for having no such limit.
- The tenth order prohibited the appellant from:
Congregating in groups of people in a manner causing or likely to cause any person to fear
for their safely or congregating in groups of more than six per- sons in an outdoor public
place.
PART 5 © SWEET & MAXWELL
76,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton Argument (2) Pdf
Page: 321
R. v DEAN BONES AND OTHERS
Given the appellant’s previous history the first part of the prohibition can be justified as
necessary. As the respondent points out, the final clause would appear to prohibit the
appellant from attending sporting or other outdoor events. Such a prohibition is, in our view,
disproportionate. Although, as the respondent points out, the appellant would be able to argue
that he had a reasonable excuse for attending the event, this is, in our view, an insufficient
safeguard.
The eleventh order prohibited the appellant from:
Doing anything which may cause damage.
The respondent submits that this prohibition, even if justified (which is far from clear), is far
too wide. In the words of the respondent: “Is the appellant prohibited from scuffing his
shoes?” We agree.
The twelfth order prohibited the appellant from:
Not being anywhere but your home address as listed on this order between 2330 hours and
0700 hours or at an alternative address as agreed in advance with the prolific and priority
offender officer or anti-social behaviour coordinator at Basingstoke Police Station.
Although curfews can properly be included in an ASBO, we doubt, as does the respondent,
that such an order was necessary in this case. Although the offences of interfering with a
motor vehicle and attempted burglary (for which the appellant was sentenced on 16/5/02)
were both committed between 10pm and midnight on the same evening, there is no
suggestion that other offences have been committed at night. Moreover, the author of the pre-
sentence report states that the appellant’s offending behaviour did not fit a pattern which
could be controlled by the use of a curfew order.
We would go further than the respondent. Even if an ASBO was justified a 5-year curfew to
follow release is not, in our view, proportionate.
The thirteenth order prohibited the appellant from:
Being carried on any vehicle other than a vehicle in lawful use.
The respondent submits this prohibition is sufficiently clear and proportionate. We are not
convinced. We do not find the expression “lawful use” to be free from difficulty. If “the
carrying” is likely to constitute a specific criminal offence (e.g. one of the family of taking