AM v The Chief Constable of West Midlands Police

A statutory duty to consult a youth offending team arises before an application for a supervision or detention order following breach of a youth injunction. It does not arise before arrest or before the young person is produced at court. Consultation must address the proposed application and enable the team to express relevant views, including whether proceedings should continue or whether no penalty should be imposed. Its adequacy depends on the statutory purpose and context. A civil injunction must be clear, precise and understandable. An exclusion zone may be defined by a map where its boundary is clearly delineated, even if some internal detail is difficult to read.

AM appealed by case stated against a Birmingham Youth Court decision finding that he had breached a civil injunction made under section 1 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. The injunction prohibited contact with specified persons and entry into an area of Handsworth shown on an attached map.

The appeal concerned whether the Chief Constable had complied with the consultation duty in paragraph 1(3)(a) of Schedule 2 to the Act before applying for a supervision or detention order, and whether the prohibition was sufficiently clear and enforceable because of the wording and quality of the map.

1. Consultation duty. The statutory scheme requires consultation with the youth offending team before: applying for a civil injunction against a minor; applying to vary or discharge such an injunction; or applying for a supervision or detention order following breach. Paragraph 1(3)(a) of Schedule 2 refers to an application for an order under paragraph 1(1), namely a supervision order or detention order.
2. There is no express or implied duty to consult before arrest under sections 9 or 10, or before the young person is produced at court following arrest. Arrest automatically triggers the initial hearing, and the statutory duty is linked to the later application for a penalty order.
3. The consultation duty is informed by procedural fairness and the statutory purpose. The Chief Constable must seek views about the proposed penalty and must enable the youth offending team, where appropriate, to express views that breach proceedings should not continue or that no penalty should be imposed. The consultation need not ask those questions in a particular form. In this case, the team had the relevant materials, knew the background, and was consulted before any application for a supervision or detention order. The requirement was therefore met.
4. Clarity of injunction. An injunction must be clear, precise and capable of being understood by the respondent, leaving no doubt about what is prohibited. The map should have been clearer, but the injunction read as a whole identified the red-bounded exclusion zone. The boundary roads and railway line were sufficiently marked, and the reference to Handsworth did not restrict the prohibition to an undefined part of the mapped area.
5. The District Judge was entitled to find beyond reasonable doubt that AM knew the Playing Fields were within the exclusion zone and had breached the prohibition. Both questions were answered yes and the appeal was dismissed.

• Birmingham Youth Court: On 30 September 2019, District Judge Qureshi found that AM had breached the civil injunction.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal by case stated was dismissed. The District Judge was correct on both the consultation issue and enforceability of the prohibition.