Parkinson, R v

An anti-social behaviour order may be imposed alongside a custodial sentence and licence conditions only where it is demonstrably necessary to protect the public from further anti-social acts. Such cases will usually be limited where the offender will serve a substantial custodial term and be released on licence. The order may nevertheless be justified by compelling evidence of persistent offending and a clear pattern of anti-social conduct, particularly where previous sentencing measures have failed.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Preston to robbery and received three years’ detention in a young offender institution. The sentencing judge also made a two-year anti-social behaviour order to begin on his release.

He did not challenge the custodial sentence. He appealed the anti-social behaviour order, relying on R v P [2004] EWCA Crim 287. The issue was whether the evidence showed that the order was necessary despite the custodial sentence and anticipated licence conditions.

1. Appeal dismissed. The anti-social behaviour order was properly made and would take effect on the appellant’s release.

2. The court applied the approach in R v P [2004] EWCA Crim 287. Where an offender receives more than a short custodial sentence and will be released on licence, the circumstances demonstrating a need for an anti-social behaviour order are likely to be limited. An order may nonetheless be appropriate where geographical restraints can usefully supplement licence conditions.

3. This was an exceptional case. The appellant had an extensive record of persistent offending, much of it involving night-time group activity and alcohol. The sentencing judge had documentary and oral evidence of a sustained pattern of anti-social conduct and of unsuccessful previous sentencing interventions. She was entitled to find that a two-year order was necessary to protect the public from further anti-social acts.

4. The court also stated that an appellant challenging the making or breadth of an anti-social behaviour order must provide the appellate court with the material that was before the sentencing judge.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Appeal dismissed; the two-year anti-social behaviour order was upheld.
• Crown Court at Preston: On 28 April 2004, following a guilty plea to robbery, the appellant was sentenced to three years’ detention in a young offender institution and made subject to a two-year anti-social behaviour order commencing on release.