Akhurst & Anor v Director of Public Prosecutions

For the purposes of section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824, “enclosed area” must be construed in its statutory context and with regard to the penal character of the provision. The expression does not extend to very substantial university campuses or comparable large spaces merely because they are bounded or subject to access controls. The court cannot adopt a wider construction simply to reflect changes in modern circumstances. Suspicious conduct cannot satisfy the statutory requirement where the place itself falls outside the scope of “enclosed area”.

The appellants were convicted by Enfield Magistrates’ Court of four offences under section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824, arising from their presence at different campuses of Middlesex University. The campuses were substantial sites with buildings, paths, roads, CCTV and an open access policy. The magistrates considered the sites to be enclosed areas and stated a question for the opinion of the Divisional Court.

The central issue was whether the university grounds and buildings constituted an “enclosed area” within section 4, having regard to Knott v Blackburn and Another [1944] 1 All ER 116 and Talbot v Director of Public Prosecutions (CO/1829/1999).

1. Appeal allowed. The magistrates’ question was answered in the negative.
2. Section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824 had to be construed in context. The words “enclosed yard, garden or area”, read alongside the other places specified in the section and having regard to its penal character, did not support an unrestricted meaning of “area”.
3. The approach in Knott v Blackburn and Another [1944] 1 All ER 116 was followed. The court relied on the historical statutory context and the restrictive construction adopted there, including the view that “area” did not describe large spaces enclosed by ring fences.
4. The reasoning in Talbot v Director of Public Prosecutions (CO/1829/1999), concerning an office within a university department, reinforced the contextual distinction between buildings and an open-air yard, garden or area. The presence of a reception area did not materially distinguish the present case.
5. The university campuses were very substantial areas. They could not sensibly be treated as an “enclosed area” for section 4. The appellants’ suspicious conduct and the absence of an innocent explanation could not cure that statutory deficiency.
6. The court rejected the submission that the statutory language should evolve to reflect modern conditions. It was not open to the court to adopt a different interpretation from that established by the authorities merely because circumstances had changed.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal by way of case stated was allowed. The magistrates’ answer that the university grounds and buildings were an enclosed area within section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824 was rejected.
2. Enfield Magistrates’ Court: The appellants were convicted of four section 4 offences and stated the question whether the university grounds and buildings constituted an enclosed area.