Director of Public Prosecutions v L & Anor

Under Part 4 of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003, a relevant locality may comprise two or more non-contiguous zones, provided that the zones together sensibly constitute a locality and the authorisation is no wider than necessary. A constable may direct a person to leave, or not return to, the whole locality or any part of it, but must exercise that power with regard to proportionality, simplicity and clarity.

Reasonable grounds for the statutory belief may arise from all information available to the constable, including local knowledge and the existence of the authorisation. Specific conduct by the persons concerned is not essential, although bare reliance on local knowledge will ordinarily be insufficient.

The Director of Public Prosecutions brought a case stated from the West Hertfordshire Youth Court. The magistrates had made preliminary rulings, offered no evidence and dismissed charges against L and N after a police constable directed them to leave, and not return to, six non-contiguous zones in South Oxhey.

The questions concerned whether the zones could constitute one relevant locality under Part 4 of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003, whether the constable could exclude the respondents from all six zones, and whether the authorisation and his local knowledge could provide reasonable grounds for the statutory belief required before giving the direction.

1. The case was remitted to the West Hertfordshire Youth Court for consideration by a differently constituted bench in accordance with the judgments.

2. Crane J held that “relevant locality” in section 30 could, in principle, comprise several non-contiguous zones. Section 30(1) referred to problems arising in public places within a locality and did not require the locality to be a single contiguous area. The decisive question was whether the zones taken together could sensibly be described as one locality.

3. The authorisation was lawful because it concentrated on the areas where the principal problems existed and avoided the wider and potentially more draconian effect of drawing one large boundary. A very extensive collection of zones, such as zones across the Metropolitan Police area, would not constitute a single locality. Simplicity, clarity, proportionality and the need to restrict the extent of authorisations remained relevant.

4. Under section 30(4), the constable could direct persons to leave or not return to the whole locality or to any part of it. The power was therefore not limited to Zone 2. Officers should nevertheless consider whether a direction could properly be confined to the particular zone or other part from which the persons needed to be excluded.

5. For section 30(3), the constable had to have reasonable grounds for believing that the presence of the group was likely to result in members of the public being intimidated, harassed, alarmed or distressed. He need not rely on conduct by the individuals beyond their presence. Under O’Hara v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary (1997) AC 286, the constable could consider all information available to him, including what he saw and heard, local knowledge, information about the individuals and the existence of the authorisation. The statutory standard was reasonable grounds for belief, not merely reasonable grounds for suspicion, and the reasons could be tested in court.

6. Rose LJ agreed. He emphasised that the discretion to prohibit return to the whole locality required careful attention to the different reasons for identifying particular zones and to the effect on police-community relations.

• West Hertfordshire Youth Court: made preliminary rulings, offered no evidence and dismissed the charges.
• High Court (Administrative Court): answered the stated questions in favour of the Director on the principal issues and remitted the case to a differently constituted bench.