Staffordshire Moorlands v District Council

A community protection notice may be issued only to the individual or body whose own unreasonable conduct is having the required persistent or continuing detrimental effect. A notice cannot ordinarily be issued to one person because that person may be able to control another person’s anti-social behaviour. Section 44 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 provides the limited attribution mechanism for conduct on or affecting premises, where the person concerned can reasonably be expected to control or affect it. Separate statutory powers addressing children’s anti-social behaviour reinforce that construction.

This was an appeal by way of case stated from Staffordshire Magistrates’ Court. The magistrates had allowed Caroline Sanderson’s appeal against a community protection notice issued by Staffordshire Moorlands District Council. The notice required her to take reasonable steps to prevent specified anti-social behaviour by her nearly 15-year-old son. The central question was whether section 43 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 permitted a notice to be issued to a parent concerning the direct conduct of a different individual.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The magistrates had correctly concluded that section 43 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 did not empower the Council to issue a community protection notice to a parent concerning the direct anti-social behaviour of the parent’s child.
2. On its natural construction, section 43 requires the unreasonable conduct of the individual served with the notice to have the requisite persistent or continuing detrimental effect. The statutory scheme contemplated service on the person engaging in the anti-social behaviour, ultimately subject to criminal sanction.
3. A person cannot be served with a notice merely because that person has some degree of control over another person whose conduct falls within section 43. The position may differ where the person encourages or supports the anti-social behaviour, because that conduct may itself fall within section 43.
4. Section 44 reinforces this interpretation. It permits conduct on or affecting premises to be treated as conduct of an owner, leaseholder, occupier, controller, operator or maintainer where that person can reasonably be expected to control or affect it. Reading section 43 more broadly would make section 44 substantially redundant in parent-and-child cases.
5. The express statutory mechanisms for injunctions, criminal behaviour orders and parenting orders, together with the age restriction on community protection notices, supported the conclusion that Parliament had not intended local authorities to impose criminally enforceable controls on parents for a child’s extra-premises anti-social behaviour without clear statutory language. The question stated by the magistrates was answered yes.

• High Court (Administrative Court): On 19 March 2020, the appeal by way of case stated was dismissed and the magistrates’ conclusion was upheld.
• Staffordshire Magistrates’ Court: On 22 July 2019, the court allowed the respondent’s appeal against the community protection notice.