W (a juvenile) v Acton Youth Court

Proceedings for an anti-social behaviour order under section 1C of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 are civil proceedings, despite the order being made following a criminal conviction. Hearsay evidence is therefore admissible, but the magistrates must assess its reliability and weight. The criminal standard applies to whether the defendant acted anti-socially; necessity is a matter of judgment. Each prohibition must be necessary in its particular terms and sufficiently precise for the defendant to understand. Judicial review is available only where procedural defects amount to an excess of jurisdiction. Ordinary complaints about the order or hearing should generally be pursued by appeal to the Crown Court.

The claimant, aged 14, pleaded guilty before Acton Youth Court to offences involving the taking and driving of a vehicle. The youth court then made an anti-social behaviour order under section 1C of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, relying on a police statement containing numerous alleged incidents, much of it hearsay.

The claimant sought judicial review, arguing that the proceedings were criminal, the hearsay was inadmissible, inadequate time had been given to prepare, the prohibitions were excessive and unclear, and the justices had failed to give proper reasons. His separate appeal to the Crown Court was adjourned pending the Administrative Court’s decision.

1. Claim dismissed. The criticisms of the youth court proceedings did not establish an excess of jurisdiction warranting judicial review. The claimant retained his appeal to the Crown Court, where the making and terms of the order could be reconsidered.
2. Proceedings under section 1C of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 are civil proceedings. The reasoning in R (McCann and others) v Crown Court at Manchester [2003] 1 AC 787 applied to section 1C orders. The fact that the order followed a conviction and was sought by the prosecution did not alter its civil character. The comparable reasoning in Gough v Chief Constable of the Derbyshire Constabulary [2002] QB 459 and B v Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary [2001] 1 WLR 340 supported that conclusion.
3. Hearsay was admissible. Its admissibility did not remove the obligation to assess its weight. The justices had to distinguish cogent cumulative hearsay from unreliable gossip, considering it alongside admitted or proved facts, cross-examination and the claimant’s evidence.
4. Judicial review was not an alternative appeal. The claimant had to show that the process was so flawed that the order amounted to an excess of jurisdiction. An accused person must have adequate time to meet allegations supporting an ASBO. However, where the defendant is represented and no adjournment is sought, the justices are not ordinarily required to adjourn of their own motion.
5. The statutory conditions are distinct. The question whether the defendant acted anti-socially attracts the criminal standard of proof. Whether an order is necessary is a judgment, not an issue governed by a standard of proof. Each prohibition must be necessary, considered together with the other prohibitions and in the particular terms used.
6. The guidance in Shane Tony P [2004] EWCA Crim 287 was material: prohibitions must be precise and understandable, the factual findings should be recorded, the order should be explained, and its written terms should reflect what was pronounced. Defects in drafting were matters for the Crown Court appeal.
7. Although the statutory requirement for written reasons had been removed, the justices still had to give reasons in some form, orally if necessary. The reasons had to explain why the order was made and demonstrate that the correct issues had been considered. The apparent absence of adequate reasons did not, on the material before the court, establish that the wrong standard of proof had been applied.

• Acton Youth Court: on 1 June 2004 made an anti-social behaviour order under section 1C of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 after the claimant pleaded guilty to vehicle and driving offences.
• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the judicial review claim. The claimant’s appeal to the Crown Court was adjourned pending this decision.