Lancashire Constabulary v Wilson & Anor

For an interlocutory gang-related violence injunction, the threshold is whether there is a realistic prospect of establishing the alleged conduct. Police intelligence graded B4 may be relied on; the absence of corroboration does not make it legally unusable, although its weight remains for the court. Under the Policing and Crime Act 2009, public self-identification by a gang name may satisfy the requirement that members be identifiable by others. The court also considered it arguable that restrictions and powers of arrest must reflect the individual’s level of involvement, rather than the gang’s activities as a whole.

The Chief Constable obtained an interim injunction under section 40 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009. It was granted ex parte on 3 September 2014, continued on 16 September, and later varied by His Honour Judge Butler sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge. On 26 February 2015, Judge Butler refused to discharge it. Permission to appeal was refused on paper by Jackson LJ.

The appellant renewed the application. The issues included the sufficiency of police intelligence, whether the alleged group satisfied the statutory definition of a gang, whether particular restrictions were disproportionate, and whether powers of arrest were appropriate.

The court refused permission to appeal on grounds 1 and 2, but granted permission on grounds 3 and 4. The decision concerned permission at an interlocutory stage and did not finally determine the merits of the latter grounds.

1. Evidence. The threshold question was whether there was a realistic prospect of establishing that the appellant had engaged in, encouraged or assisted gang-related violence. Intelligence graded B4 came from a mostly reliable source, although the information itself could not be judged or corroborated. The court was not disentitled from placing reliance on third-hand hearsay of that kind. The first incident alone could support the required realistic prospect, with the other incidents providing additional support.
2. Retaliatory violence. Being the recipient of retaliation could provide evidence of participation in gang activity where there was reason to suppose that the injury had been inflicted in retaliation for such activity.
3. Statutory definition. Section 34(5) of the Policing and Crime Act 2009 required a group to have a name, emblem, colour or other characteristic enabling its members to be identified by others. Public reference by members to themselves as the Deepdale Gangsters was capable of satisfying that requirement. The court distinguished Chief Constable of Greater Manchester v Scott Calder [2015] EWHC B11: that decision did not determine that others excluded the police and concerned a group identified by familial links rather than by a name.
4. Proportionality and arrest powers. It was well arguable that the judge had assessed the gang’s activities as a whole without sufficiently considering that individuals might have different levels of involvement. Restrictions unrelated to the incidents relied on, including restrictions directed at non-violent drug-dealing activity, might therefore be disproportionate. It was also arguable that powers of arrest attached to those restrictions were inappropriate. Both questions required consideration together by the full court.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On the renewed application, permission was refused on grounds 1 and 2 and granted on grounds 3 and 4.
• District Registry sitting at Preston: His Honour Judge Butler, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, refused on 26 February 2015 to discharge the interim injunction and had previously varied it.
• District Judge: District Judge Green granted the injunction ex parte on 3 September 2014 and continued it on 16 September 2014.