Langley v Preston Crown Court & Ors

Section 4 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 does not confer a right of appeal to the Crown Court against a magistrates’ court decision varying or discharging an anti-social behaviour order. A variation application principally concerns whether the order remains necessary and whether its conditions should change, rather than whether the original statutory criteria were satisfied. The absence of an appeal by way of rehearing is compatible with Article 6 of the Convention. Review on a point of law by case stated or judicial review remains available, including review of whether the variation was reasonable, rational and proportionate.

The claimant was subject to a stand-alone anti-social behaviour order made by the Chorley magistrates’ court. On the local authority’s application under section 1(8) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the magistrates extended the order. The claimant appealed to the Preston Crown Court, which held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The claimant sought judicial review of that ruling. The Divisional Court considered whether section 4 of the Act permitted an appeal against variation of a stand-alone order and whether the absence of such an appeal breached Article 6 of the Convention.

1. No statutory appeal. Section 4(1) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 provides an appeal against the making of an anti-social behaviour order. Read with section 1(8), it does not extend to a subsequent decision varying or discharging an existing order.
2. Nature of variation applications. The original application requires proof of past anti-social behaviour and the need to protect relevant persons from future anti-social acts. A variation application ordinarily focuses on the current state of affairs and whether the order remains necessary, including whether its conditions or duration should change. The need for a full factual rehearing is therefore less apparent.
3. Coherent appellate scheme. The civil character and hybrid nature of anti-social behaviour orders support comparable treatment across the magistrates’ court, county court and Crown Court. Variations made by magistrates are reviewable on a point of law by case stated or judicial review. The reviewing court may consider whether the decision that variation was necessary was reasonable, rational and proportionate.
4. Article 6. Article 6 does not itself require a right of appeal. The original order was made after an Article 6-compliant hearing, and safeguards included the ability to seek variation, case stated and judicial review. The absence of an appeal to the Crown Court therefore did not violate Article 6.
5. The court observed that, save in the most exceptional circumstances, attempting to circumvent Parliament’s decision by seeking an extension of time to appeal the original order would be an abuse of process.
6. Disposition. The application for judicial review was refused.

The judgment itself records the following procedural stages:

1. Chorley magistrates’ court: made the stand-alone anti-social behaviour order and later varied it under section 1(8) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.
2. Preston Crown Court: refused to entertain the claimant’s appeal, holding that it had no jurisdiction.
3. High Court (Administrative Court): refused judicial review and upheld the conclusion that no appeal lay against the variation.