10 July 2006
High Court Judge sounds cautionary note re. Order to Disperse
A High Court judge has overturned a conviction on a 17 year old from Wimbeldon for refusing an order to disperse in a Dispersal Zone. The specific grounds that the High Court gave were that given that the youth and his group were not acting 'anti-socially' the police had no grounds on which to order them to disperse. The original conviction made at Wimbledon Youth Court was oveturned. According to the BBC report the judges found that there had been:
Obviously this is no more than a nip in the Government's 'anti-social behaviour' campaign, but it helps!
In passing lets note the BBC's headline "High Court slams 'behaviour laws' " is best taken as part of the BBC's agenda to pretend that there is some kind of opposition in this country.
High Court Judge sounds cautionary note re. Order to Disperse
A High Court judge has overturned a conviction on a 17 year old from Wimbeldon for refusing an order to disperse in a Dispersal Zone. The specific grounds that the High Court gave were that given that the youth and his group were not acting 'anti-socially' the police had no grounds on which to order them to disperse. The original conviction made at Wimbledon Youth Court was oveturned. According to the BBC report the judges found that there had been:
an illegitimate intrusion into the rights of people to go where they please in public
The 2003 'Anti-Social Behaviour' Act states:
Subsection (4) applies [this is the ground to give an order to disperse] if a constable in uniform has reasonable grounds for believing that the presence or behaviour of a group of two or more persons in any public place in the relevant locality has resulted, or is likely to result, in any members of the public being intimidated, harassed, alarmed or distressed.
The judges found that previous incidents of 'anti-social behaviour' did not constitute grounds for believing that any group of youths was likely to behave 'anti-socially'. In a way this is an important decision in favour of youth rights because the judges are explicitly saying that the police can't label all youths as trouble-makers per se.
Obviously this is no more than a nip in the Government's 'anti-social behaviour' campaign, but it helps!
In passing lets note the BBC's headline "High Court slams 'behaviour laws' " is best taken as part of the BBC's agenda to pretend that there is some kind of opposition in this country.
Key Facts
- If the police or a CSO gives an order to disperse and you refuse you can be fined up to £2,500.00 or sent to jail for 3 months or (yippee) both
- When a dispersal order is in place the police or a CSO can 'take home' anyone under the age of 16 between 9pm and 6am not with a responsible adult. However: the police do not have the power of arrest, so you can just refuse. (Be careful though; they could turn it into an order to disperse and arrest you for failing to disperse).
- Up to 30 June 2005 809 dispersal zones were introduced. They usually last 6 months but can be extended