Carter v Crown Prosecution Service

Criminal liability for breaching a dispersal direction depends on proof of a valid authorisation, proper publicity, a lawful direction and its breach. The prosecution must prove the statutory authorisation itself, rather than an informal document created to explain it. At the first hearing, the court should identify whether the authorisation and its making are admitted, so that any genuine issue can be dealt with efficiently while protecting liberty.

The appellant was convicted by magistrates of contravening a direction given under an authorisation made under sections 30 to 32 of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003. The prosecution relied principally on a document described as a “Dispersal Order”. The magistrates accepted oral evidence that the order had been signed and properly publicised, without requiring proof of the statutory authorisation.

On appeal by case stated, the High Court considered whether the prosecution had proved the statutory requirements and was invited to give guidance on the future conduct of such prosecutions.

1. The appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted to the magistrates with a direction to acquit. The Crown had not proved the statutory authorisation required by the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003.
2. The legislation distinguishes between the authorisation which confers additional powers on uniformed officers and the direction subsequently given to an individual. A document called a “Dispersal Order” is not the statutory authorisation and cannot replace proof of it.
3. In a prosecution for breach of a dispersal direction, the Crown must prove all material elements, including that a valid authorisation was in effect, the publicity provisions had been complied with, the officer was in uniform, the direction was given within the relevant locality, the defendant knew its statutory character, the direction was lawful, and the defendant failed to comply.
4. At the first hearing, the magistrates’ court must ask whether the authorisation and its making are admitted. Relevant documents should be available at court. If the defence needs a short period to inspect them, the case should ordinarily be put back briefly so that the issue can be identified and any genuine challenge addressed efficiently.
5. These procedural observations were intended as practical guidance. The police, CPS, courts and defence practitioners should devise a workable local procedure that protects liberty while enabling properly founded prosecutions to proceed.

• Magistrates’ Court: convicted the appellant of contravening a dispersal direction, accepting oral evidence concerning the purported “Dispersal Order”.
• High Court (Administrative Court): allowed the appeal and remitted the matter with a direction to acquit.