Comments on: ASBOs for all!

By: J

Tue, 19 May 2009 21:38:08 +0000

Well – there are ways around the decision in Shafi – you can still seek a s.222 injunction if you can show that an ASBO wasn’t available. Given that you seem to want relief on a quia timet basis, surely that is sufficient to rule out an ASBO?

By: Jon

Jon — Tue, 19 May 2009 15:43:14 +0000

The problem I have, working for an LA with no housing stock, is that having served a s11A ASB Act closure order I can’t now get an injunction to prevent the residents moving into a house across the street, which seems to defeat the purpose of the closure order.

Perhaps Jacqui Smith (but given the state of politics today it probably wont be her much longer!)could also propose an amendment to the ASB act to allow for injunctions in circumstances were an 2 year ASBO isn’t necessary but short term relief is.

By: chief

chief — Tue, 12 May 2009 07:04:55 +0000

They did petition the Lords, but it didn’t get them anywhere. Leave was refused in February. Months ago I know, but I’m on a roll checking these all out.

By: M

Tue, 13 Jan 2009 12:18:08 +0000

BBC News reported this morning Home Secretary Jacqui Smith shall propose legislation in the forthcoming policing bill giving police and councils powers to seek injunctions against gang members.

“The legislation is expected to allow councils to seek banning orders on a lower standard of evidence than required for Anti-social Behaviour Orders.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7825314.stm

By: NL

NL — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 19:23:09 +0000

@Rosaleen Kilbane: I’m not entirely surprised.

By: Rosaleen Kilbane

Rosaleen Kilbane — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 13:03:49 +0000

BCC have petitioned the Lords for leave to appeal.

By: J

Tue, 04 Nov 2008 08:57:15 +0000

@JS – I suspect that you’re right, but it is certainly possible to read extracts from the case as suggesting that the ASBI is caught by the same criticism. Certainly, defence counsel will argue the point.

I’m less convinced about your point (2). The power of the AG to seek injunctions is unlimited, subject only to control by Parliament. The old cases make clear that, if the AG seeks an injunction, there is a presumption in favour of granting it.

Birmingham also, of course, put their case on both limbs of the s.222 jurisdiction. It was said to be in order to assist the criminal law but also to prevent a public nuisance. One can well understand why there might be policy arguments about a higher standard of proof in the former case, but why in the latter? Why should a public nuisance be required to be proved to the criminal standard? How does that impact on the ability to seek a qua timet injunction?

By: JS

JS — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 19:33:56 +0000

The reasoning I doubt can be properly extended to ASBIs for the following reasons:

1 Moat Housing Ltd-v- Hartless where the CA expressly suggested that where housing related anti social behaviour was at issue ASBIs were generally more appropriate than ASBOS

2 The conduct in the Birmingham case was not housing related within the meaning of Section 153 . As S222 Local Government Act 1972 is in effect the equivalent of an AG relator action – the sole purpose it seems of Birmingham seeking to use S222 injunctions to restrain a breach of the criminal law was to circumvent the requirement to prove the conduct required for an ASBO to the requisite criminal standard of proof. The use of this jurisdiction has always been properly limited .