Belaid, R v

An anti-social behaviour order imposed following conviction requires a demonstrable necessity to protect persons from further anti-social acts. Where a substantial custodial sentence will be followed by licence and liability to recall, necessity should not generally be presumed. The court must assess the individual facts, including whether tailored licence conditions will provide at least equivalent and more effective protection.

An order is not necessary where its restrictions are unlikely to curb the relevant offending and are instead likely merely to displace it to other locations. These considerations required the order to be quashed under section 1C of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.

The appellant received four concurrent sentences of 30 months’ imprisonment at Southwark Crown Court for three thefts and one count of handling stolen goods. He had a long history of stealing bags and their contents, particularly at mainline railway stations, bars, pubs and cafés, to fund heroin and crack cocaine dependency.

The sentencing judge also made a three-year anti-social behaviour order, effective on release. It prohibited the appellant from entering or remaining on trains and from entering specified London mainline stations, save to use the Underground. The appeal challenged the order alone. The central issue was whether the order was necessary to protect persons from further anti-social acts.

1. Appeal allowed. The court quashed the anti-social behaviour order. The concurrent custodial sentences remained undisturbed.

2. Section 1C of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 permitted an order only where the offender had acted in an anti-social manner and the order was necessary to protect persons from further anti-social acts. The statutory requirement was necessity, not simply the desirability of further restrictions.

3. The court followed R v Lee Kirby [2005] EWCA Crim. 1228. A substantial custodial sentence followed by release on licence and liability to recall is a potent consideration. It should not generally be assumed that an order is necessary in those circumstances; necessity must be demonstrated on the facts of the individual case.

4. The appellant would be subject to licence and recall for about 15 months after release. Licence conditions could be tailored to the assessed residual risk at that time and were likely to protect the public more effectively than the order. Treatment for drug dependency during custody also created a real possibility that the driver of his offending would diminish.

5. The station ban was in any event unlikely to curtail the appellant’s habitual thefts. His offending had extended to bars, pubs and cafés, and the order could simply displace it to those places or to the Underground. Accordingly, the required necessity was not established.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence and quashed the anti-social behaviour order.
• Southwark Crown Court: On 6 May 2008, imposed four concurrent terms of 30 months’ imprisonment and a three-year anti-social behaviour order.