The defendant appealed the terms of an anti-social behaviour order, saying that the curfew imposed as one of the conditions of the order was unlawful being mandatory rather than prohibitory, and tantamount to a penal sanction.
Held: The substance of the order had to be prohibitory rather than mandatory, but the curfew, being a restriction on movement, met that test. It was implicit from McCann that since the purpose of an anti-social behaviour order was preventative rather that by way of punishment, it was not proper to try to compare what sentence might be imposed for a similar criminal offence. The appeal was dismissed.
Judges:
Maurice Kay LJ, Moses J
Citations:
[2005] EWHC 457 (Admin), Times 25-Apr-2005, [2005] 1 WLR 2570, [2005] 2 All ER 362
Links:
Statutes:
Crime and Disorder Act 1998 1, Powers of the Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000
Cited by:
Cited – Boness v Regina; Regina v Bebbington etc CACD 19-Aug-2005
Each defendant had commited a substantive offence, and when sentenced, his sentence hd been accompanied by an anti-social behaviour order. In some cases orders had been made in a form similar to football banning orders, but such orders were not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice, Crime
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.223854