Stannard v The Crown Prosecution Service (Rev 1)

A defendant prosecuted for breaching a Community Protection Notice cannot ordinarily challenge the notice’s validity as a defence. The statutory scheme requires such a challenge to be made by appeal, with judicial review also available in appropriate cases.

A Community Protection Notice remains binding and enforceable unless varied or discharged. The power to issue such a notice necessarily includes an implied power to vary or discharge it, including after the 21-day appeal period where circumstances change or the notice becomes inappropriate. The issuing authority should operate a system for considering such requests. Notices must be clear and proportionate.

The appellant was convicted by a magistrates’ court of breaching a Community Protection Notice issued by a police constable under section 43 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. The notice prohibited him from entering much of Reading town centre, attending near McDonald’s restaurants, and being in a group of more than three people.

At trial, he argued that the notice was invalid because its requirements were unreasonable, disproportionate and indefinite. The District Judge held that its validity could not be challenged in breach proceedings and convicted him. The appeal by way of case stated concerned whether the District Judge had to examine the notice’s legality, whether the notice was binding like a court order, and whether the prosecution had to call the evidence supporting its issue.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The District Judge was entitled to treat the Community Protection Notice as binding and enforceable and to reject the proposed challenge to its validity at trial.

2. The availability of a public law defence to a criminal charge depends on the true construction of the relevant statutory scheme. The strong presumption in favour of permitting challenges to unlawful administrative action may be displaced by clear statutory context. Boddington v British Transport Police [1999] 2 AC 143 did not require a different result.

3. The scheme under sections 43 and 46 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 provides a specific right of appeal against a Community Protection Notice, including on grounds that its requirements are unreasonable or that there is a material defect. The appeal court may quash, modify or dismiss the appeal. Allowing validity challenges at a criminal trial would undermine that scheme and create an incentive to await prosecution rather than appeal.

4. The power in section 43(1) to issue a notice necessarily carries an implied power for the authorised person to vary or discharge it. Without that power, a notice could become immutable after 21 days, producing impractical and potentially unjust results. The court relied by analogy on R v Bristol City Council ex p Everett [1999] 1 WLR 92, affirmed on appeal at [1999] 1 WLR 1170.

5. A person may seek variation or discharge from the authorised person and may seek judicial review of a refusal or other decision under section 43. Judicial review remains available, although the court may take account of any alternative remedy that was available and not pursued.

6. The questions in the Case Stated were answered: the District Judge did not have to determine the notice’s reasonableness or legality; a police-issued notice was binding until varied or discharged by the authorised person, on appeal, or through judicial review; and the prosecution was not required to call the original evidence supporting the notice.

7. More generally, Community Protection Notices significantly interfere with individual freedom. They should be clear, proportionate, and preferably limited in time. Authorised persons should provide a practical means of seeking variation or discharge.

• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the appeal by way of case stated from the conviction in the magistrates’ court.