The prosecutor appealed after the district judge had at first granted an anti-social behaviour order, but had later thought it too wide and that it was unenforceable and void.
Held: the district judge had exceeded his powers. There were clearly defined avenues of appeal and the defendant should have used them rather than to seek to use such complaints as a defence on a breach allegation. However the court acknowledged that the judge’s concerns had been well founded, and declined to quash his decision or to remit the case.
Richards LJ cited Boddington and observed: ‘Very different considerations apply in the present context. First, the normal rule in relation to an order of the court is that it must be treated as valid and be obeyed unless and until it is set aside. Even if the order should not have been made in the first place, a person may be liable for any breach of it committed before it is set aside.’
Orse Director of Public Prosecutions v T
Lord Justice Richards
[2006] EWHC 728 (Admin), Times 13-Apr-2006, [2006] 3 All ER 471, [2007] 1 WLR 209
Bailii
Crime and Disorder Act 1998
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Hadkinson v Hadkinson CA 1952
The courts adopt an approach similar to that of the United States courts where there has been a significant contempt on the part of a party to litigation. Denning LJ said: ‘Those cases seem to me to point the way to the modern rule. It is a strong . .
Cited – Johnson v Walton 1990
There was a continuing obligation to obey a court order until it was discharged. . .
Cited – W, Regina (on the Application Of) v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 8-Jun-2005
The defendant appealed a conviction for breaching an anti-social behaviour order. The order had prohibited him from committing any criminal act. It was now challenged as being too wide a prohibition.
Held: ‘The defendant had already been . .
Cited by:
Cited – Majera, Regina (on The Application of v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 20-Oct-2021
The Court was asked whether the Government (or, indeed, anyone else) can lawfully act in a manner which is inconsistent with an order of a judge which is defective, without first applying for, and obtaining, the variation or setting aside of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 October 2021; Ref: scu.240070