The defendant appealed against an anti-social behaviour order. He had been a journalist, and began a private newsletter and campaign alleging amongst other things corruption in the police. He complained that his article 10 rights had been infringed.
Held: The order was quashed. Pitchford LJ said: ‘that separate issues arise out of these blogs. In the blogs, as I have made clear from the District Judge’s review of the evidence, the appellant claimed that various figures in the village had been guilty of corruption and perverting the course of justice. The appellant did not lead any evidence to support those charges, but the blogs did not incite or threaten violence or disorder. They could not reasonably have given rise to the suspicion that the appellant would resort to threats of violence or disorder. The district judge did not so find. The mere fact that a blog may contain material that is untrue or even defamatory or, as the District Judge put it, damaging to the reputation of the people of whom he spoke may justify the civil courts in making an injunction, a breach of which may be a contempt of court punishable with imprisonment, but in deciding whether or not the statutory criteria for these purposes are met, it seems to me that the District Judge put far too much weight upon the fact that the allegations which the appellant made in the blog were uncorroborated or, as he put it, ‘totally unsubstantiated’. ‘
and ‘I appreciate that District Judges in determining these applications must be allowed a wide measure of appreciation. This court should not interfere unless the order made is one which could not reasonably have been made on the evidence adduced. In my judgment, the District Judge far too readily accepted the assertion made by each of the complainants that they had suffered harassment, alarm or distress. More is required than repeating this mantra in each witness statement. It seems to me that the entries on the blog and the physical contacts such as there were between the appellant and those whom he targeted were offensive and tiresome, it is even possible that they could properly be described as amounting to anti-social behaviour but I do not think that the high threshold set by the statutory criteria was met at all.’
Judges:
Pitchford LJ, Openshaw J
Citations:
[2012] EWHC 3226 (Admin)
Links:
Statutes:
Crime and Disorder Act 1998 1(1), Criminal Procedure Rules 64.6, European Convention on Human Rights 10
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Clingham (formerly C (a minor)) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea; Regina v Crown Court at Manchester Ex parte McCann and Others HL 17-Oct-2002
The applicants had been made subject of anti-social behaviour orders. They challenged the basis upon which the orders had been made.
Held: The orders had no identifiable consequences which would make the process a criminal one. Civil standards . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime, Human Rights, Media
Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.466541