Bucknell v DPP

Under Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003, a dispersal direction based on the presence of a group normally requires some behaviour indicating harassment, intimidation, alarm or distress. Mere presence can suffice in exceptional circumstances, but the power must be exercised objectively and proportionately. A constable’s previous experience of disorder in the area, together with the reasons for designating it as a dispersal area, does not ordinarily justify dispersing a group of young people who are behaving properly and travelling home.

The claimant, aged 17, was convicted by the Merton magistrates of knowingly contravening a constable’s dispersal direction in a designated area at the Centre Court Shopping Centre, Wimbledon. He had been one of a number of young people present in two groups, but there was no evidence that they were behaving antisocially or that any member of the public had been harassed, intimidated, alarmed or distressed. The case stated the question whether the magistrates were entitled to convict on the evidence, including the constable’s knowledge of previous disorder in the area.

1. Appeal allowed. The magistrates were not entitled, on the evidence, to convict the claimant.
2. Section 30(3) of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 permits a dispersal direction where a constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the presence or behaviour of two or more persons is likely to result in members of the public being intimidated, harassed, alarmed or distressed. The statutory language can operate on presence alone in some circumstances, but great care is required where presence is the sole basis.
3. Unless exceptional circumstances exist, reasonable belief must normally depend, at least in part, on behaviour by the group indicating harassment, intimidation, alarm or distress. The constable’s experience of previous disorder and the history supporting designation of the area could be considered, but they did not objectively establish the necessary belief in this case.
4. The absence of evidence that anyone had been affected, the time of day, the claimant’s proper conduct and the ordinary activity of young people travelling home from school meant that the direction was not a proportionate response under the legislation. The apparent characteristics of the groups alone were insufficient.
5. The claimant’s reliance on Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights did not require determination because the legislation was not alleged to be incompatible with that provision. R (on the application of Laporte and others) v Chief Constable of Gloucestershire Constabulary and others was factually different and its application depended on the facts of each case.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal by way of case stated was allowed. The court held that the magistrates were not entitled to convict on the evidence.