R & Ors (on the application of) v Metroplitan Police Commssioner & Ors

Publicity following an anti-social behaviour order may engage Article 8. Authorities must consider the Convention rights of those subject to the order and of the wider public. They must identify legitimate aims and ensure that disclosure is necessary and proportionate.

Effective publicity will commonly require photographs, names and partial addresses, and need not be confined to an order’s exclusion area. Its content must remain accurate and must not suggest that the subjects have been convicted of offences when they have not. Different forms of targeted publicity may be justified where each serves an informative, reassuring or enforcement purpose.

The claimants sought judicial review of publicity issued by the Metropolitan Police and London Borough of Brent after anti-social behaviour orders were made against them. Leaflets, website material and a council newsletter disclosed their photographs, names, ages, partial addresses and details of the orders.

They alleged that the publicity was unlawful, disproportionate and breached Article 8. The defendants accepted that the orders could be publicised but disputed the alleged interference and contended that the publicity served enforcement, deterrence, reassurance and public-information purposes. The central issue was whether the nature, content and extent of the publicity were lawful and proportionate.

1. Applications dismissed. The court held that the police and local authority had power to publicise the making of anti-social behaviour orders, including by necessary implication from the statutory scheme. The local authority also had power under section 2(1) of the Local Government Act 2000.
2. Post-order publicity may interfere with the Article 8 rights of persons subject to the orders, particularly where photographs obtained under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 are used. Decision-makers must therefore consider whether the proposed publicity is necessary and proportionate to legitimate aims.
3. The aims of publicity commonly overlap. They may include informing and reassuring residents, assisting enforcement, inhibiting further anti-social behaviour and deterring others. Publicity is unlikely to be effective unless readers can identify the persons subject to the orders. Photographs, names and at least partial addresses may therefore be justified, provided that they do not create a risk of mis-identification.
4. Publicity need not be confined to the geographical exclusion area in the orders. The terms of an order may prohibit conduct or associations outside that area, and different media may properly reach different sections of the local community. The website, leaflet distribution and tenants’ newsletter were, in context, properly targeted and served distinct informative or enforcement purposes.
5. The remainder of the publicity must depend on the facts. Material may describe the serious behaviour which led to the orders, but must not assert that the subjects were convicted of offences unless that is accurate. Colourful language was not unlawful in this case because it was factually grounded and intended to attract attention.
6. Future decision-makers should expressly recognise the Convention rights of both the subjects and the wider public, record the legitimate aims and confine disclosure to what is reasonable and proportionate. Consultation or notification may be appropriate where realistic, especially for very young subjects, but there was no practical need for the claimants to vet or approve the material here.

First-instance judicial review proceedings in the Administrative Court. The applications were dismissed.