Hall,R. v

An anti-social behaviour order may be made in response to persistent driving offending where it is necessary to protect the public from further anti-social acts. Repeated driving whilst disqualified, uninsured and dangerously may amount to anti-social behaviour.

The order must be precise, capable of being understood, and properly explained to the offender. In the circumstances, an indefinite order was inappropriate. Its duration should instead be specified so that compliance is realistically achievable.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Central Sussex Magistrates’ Court to driving offences and was committed to the Crown Court for sentence. The Crown Court imposed a total of 12 months’ imprisonment for driving whilst disqualified and dangerous driving, together with an anti-social behaviour order prohibiting him indefinitely from driving a mechanically propelled vehicle on a public road without a valid driving licence and insurance.

The custodial sentence was not challenged. The appeal concerned whether the order was necessary and whether its indefinite duration was lawful and appropriate, given the appellant’s extensive history of driving offending and the circumstances of the dangerous driving.

1. The appeal was allowed only as to the duration of the anti-social behaviour order. The order was varied from an indefinite order to an order lasting two years from July 2004.

2. The court applied the principles identified in P. The governing question was whether an order was necessary to protect the public from further anti-social acts. There was no objection in principle to an order based on driving offences where their regularity, character and context made them anti-social behaviour.

3. The appellant’s extensive record of driving whilst disqualified and uninsured, combined with the serious and dangerous manner of the current offending, justified the conclusion that an order was necessary. The order was not improperly made merely because a future breach could carry a more severe maximum penalty than driving whilst disqualified.

4. The judge had explained the practical effect of the order, and the appellant confirmed that he understood it. The court was satisfied that the order otherwise complied with the requirements that its terms be precise, comprehensible, pronounced in open court and accurately reflected in writing.

5. However, an indefinite order was inappropriate. By analogy with excessively long periods of disqualification, it could make compliance more difficult. The order should have stated a definite duration; two years was substituted.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — allowed the appeal only to the extent of varying the anti-social behaviour order from an indefinite order to one lasting two years from July 2004.

• Crown Court — on 30 June 2004 imposed concurrent sentences totalling 12 months’ imprisonment and made an indefinite anti-social behaviour order. No citation was stated in the judgment.

• Central Sussex Magistrates’ Court — on 22 June 2004 the appellant pleaded guilty and was committed to the Crown Court for sentence.