The Commissioner appealed against a declaration that an authorisation given for creation of a dispersal area was unlawful.
Held: The proceedings appeared at first to be merely hypothetical, but the issue as to whether a police officer had use reasonable force to remove a child from a dspersal area was a live issue of general public concern. The word ‘remove’ in s 30(6) carried a coercive power, and therefore a police officer, and other similarly empowered by the Act, could use reasonable force to achieve the purpose of the Act.
Judges:
Judge LJ, May LJ, Wall LJ
Citations:
Times 22-May-2006
Statutes:
Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 30(6)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Regina on the Application of PW v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, The London Borough of Richmond-Upon-Thames Admn 20-Jul-2005
W, a child of 14 sought judicial review of an order to remove persons under the age of 16 from dispersal areas in Richmond.
Held: The issue was whether the power given to police to remove youths was permissive or coercive. The power given ‘is . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State Home Dept ex parte Wynne HL 17-Mar-1993
A prisoner wishing to appear at court in civil proceedings needed under the Act to apply for his own production to court, and to make arrangement for payment of the costs of being produced at court.
Held: A Legislature could so provide even . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Police, Crime
Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.242872
