Wycombe District Council v Snowball

For an offence under section 63 of the Anti-social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014, the relevant question is whether the constable reasonably believed the statutory circumstances existed when the requirement was imposed and refused. The actual contents of the container need not be proved. Once all elements of the offence are present, the offence is complete. A later change of heart, or later discovery that the container did not contain alcohol, does not retrospectively erase the offence. The statutory language focuses on the constable’s subjective but reasonable belief. A person who seeks to challenge the validity of a public spaces protection order must use the procedure provided by section 66, subject to the statutory exceptions.

A public spaces protection order prohibited the consumption of alcohol and possession of an open container for alcohol in a restricted area. The respondent was seen drinking from an open can labelled Foster’s. A police constable reasonably believed that it contained alcohol, required the respondent to surrender it, warned him that refusal was an offence, and issued a fixed penalty notice when he continued to refuse.

The respondent later poured out the contents, which were not alcohol. The magistrates’ court dismissed the information, holding that the constable’s reasonable belief was continuing and that the requirement fell away once the true contents were revealed. The Council appealed by way of case stated. The central questions were when the section 63 offence was complete and whether subsequent events could retrospectively prevent liability.

1. The appeal was allowed. The offence was complete when the fixed penalty notice was issued, and the case was remitted to the Magistrates’ Court with a direction to convict.
2. Section 63(1) applied because the constable reasonably believed that the respondent was consuming alcohol in breach of the public spaces protection order. Under section 63(2), the constable was therefore entitled to require surrender of anything which was, or which he reasonably believed to be, alcohol or a container for alcohol.
3. The constable complied with section 63(3) by warning the respondent that failure without reasonable excuse to comply was an offence. The respondent continued to refuse. On the magistrates’ findings, the elements of the offence under section 63(6) were then satisfied.
4. The statutory scheme focuses on the constable’s reasonable belief rather than proof of the objective fact that alcohol was present. The repeated use of “reasonably believes” showed that Parliament addressed the practical difficulty of proving the contents of a container during a street encounter.
5. There was no basis in section 63 for treating later cooperation, or the later discovery that the can contained no alcohol, as retrospectively erasing an already complete offence. The magistrates therefore erred in law by allowing subsequent events to determine whether the offence had been committed.
6. The validity of the public spaces protection order could not be challenged in these proceedings. Section 66(7) restricted such a challenge to the statutory procedure, subject to the stated exception, and the respondent had not been charged with the relevant section 67(3) offence.
7. The Civil Procedure Rules 1998 did not apply to this criminal appeal by way of case stated. The relevant procedural provisions were in Part 35 of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2015. The court asked the appropriate court officer to consider correcting the prosecutor’s name from Wycombe District Council to Buckinghamshire Council.

• High Court (Administrative Court): on an appeal by way of case stated, answered both questions in the affirmative and remitted the case to the Magistrates’ Court with a direction to convict.
• High Wycombe Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Dodds dismissed the information after finding that the constable’s reasonable belief continued after the fixed penalty notice and that the later disclosure of the can’s contents prevented completion of the offence.