The court has power to extend the term on an anti-social behaviour order when asked to vary its terms. There was however no right of appeal against the decision to vary an ASBO: ‘The fact that there is no appeal from any variation is a matter which has caused us concern. But it seems to us this is insufficient in itself to justify a departure from the clear meaning of the subsection. The protection for a defendant is, in our view, provided by the fact that an application to vary, if it imposes more stringent obligations (such as greater length) on a defendant, can only succeed if the applying authority can put before the justices material which justifies the extension as necessary in order to achieve the statutory objective. The usual burden and standard of proof will apply to the determination of that question. Further, in an application to vary length the applying authority will have to persuade the justices that it is appropriate to vary the length of the existing ASBO rather than make application for a new one. There would be a clear rationale for example, for asking for an extension of an ASBO for less than two years, on the basis that the authority did not consider that it was necessary to have a further period as long as the minimum period of two years which would be necessary were a fresh ASBO to be ordered.’
Judges:
Latham LJ, Rafferty J
Citations:
[2007] EWHC 1612 (Admin), Times 11-Sep-2007, [2007] 1 WLR 3025
Links:
Statutes:
Crime and Disorder Act 1998 1(8)
Cited by:
Cited – Langley v Preston Crown Court and others CACD 30-Oct-2008
The defendant sought to appeal against a ‘stand-alone’ anti-social behaviour order. The parties disputed whether an appeal lay. The act created an appeal against the making of an order but in this case it was a renewed order.
Held: In the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.254611