L v Crown Prosecution Service

For an offence under section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824, being present in an enclosed yard is insufficient. The prosecution must prove a criminal unlawful purpose, and that purpose must exist when the defendant is found, discovered or seen in the relevant place. A previous unlawful purpose which has ended cannot suffice. Hiding from the police to avoid detection or arrest is not itself a criminal unlawful purpose. The court should assess the defendant’s purpose at the point of discovery and apply the criminal standard of proof. The provision is a preventive offence of last resort and should be used with caution.

The claimant appealed by way of case stated against his conviction by the Sunderland Youth Court for being found in an enclosed yard for an unlawful purpose, contrary to section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824. The prosecution relied on the claimant’s presence near premises which had recently been burgled, the presence of another youth in the neighbouring yard, and the discovery of stolen keys. The justices had not identified the particular unlawful purpose found, and had referred to the balance of probabilities when rejecting a submission of no case to answer. The central issue was whether the evidence established a criminal unlawful purpose existing when the claimant was found.

1. The appeal was allowed and the conviction was quashed. The case was not remitted for retrial because the prosecution case was extremely flimsy and there was no proper basis for conviction on the criminal standard.
2. Section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824 requires proof of both presence in one of the specified locations and a criminal unlawful purpose. Hiding from the police, whether to avoid detection or arrest, is not itself such a purpose. The court referred to Hayes v Stephenson [1860] 25 JP 39 and Smith v the Chief Superintendent of Woking Police Station [1983] 76 Crim App R 234 in support of that construction.
3. The word found includes being seen or discovered. It is unnecessary for the defendant to be arrested at the relevant place, but the required unlawful purpose must exist when the defendant is found. The court applied the reasoning in Moran v Jones (1911) 75 JP 411 and R v Goodwin [1944] 1 All ER 506.
4. The claimant’s presence in the yard was consistent with hiding after being disturbed. Although it was theoretically possible that he intended to resume a burglary if undisturbed, that was no more than a possibility and had not been the clear basis on which the case was presented to the justices. A prior purpose connected with the burglary could not establish the offence if it had ceased by the time he was found.
5. The justices’ reference to the balance of probabilities was wrong. It might have been treated as a slip if the proper approach had otherwise been demonstrated, but the uncertainty about the prosecution case and the absence of a particular finding of unlawful purpose meant that the conviction could not stand. The court declined to answer the question concerning section 35 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
6. Lord Justice Auld agreed that the critical question was the claimant’s purpose at the time of discovery. He added that section 4 is a preventive measure of last resort which should be used cautiously, given the snapshot assessment required of criminal intent.

• High Court (Administrative Court): allowed the appeal by way of case stated, quashed the Youth Court conviction and declined to order a retrial.
• Sunderland Youth Court: convicted the claimant under section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824.