Jones v Birmingham City Council & Anor (Rev1) [2023] UKSC 27 (19 July 2023)
Citation:Jones v Birmingham City Council & Anor (Rev1) [2023] UKSC 27 (19 July 2023)
Rule of thumb:Can you get an ASBO imposed you purely due to the fact that you are a fairly close friend of people in a well-known gang? Can you be liable to city-centre injunction curfews due to this? Yes, the 2014 Anti-Social Behaviour Act has preventative provisions in it which mean that people who closely be-friend gang members can have curfews imposed on them.
Background facts:The facts of this case were that Jones had a lot of friends who were involved in a well-known gang in Birmingham. Jones was a well-known friend of people in this gang, which Birmingham City Council were able to prove, however, he had not committed any crimes as such. Birmingham City Council however imposed an Anti-Social Behaviour Order on Jones under the 2014 Anti-Social Behaviour Act, banning him from going into the city-centre at certain times as they believed he was liable to intimidate people or cause trouble.
Parties argued:Jones disputed that this was valid as he had not actually partaken in any crime, nor had crimes had been proved against him beyond reasonable doubt, so his Article 6 Right to a Fair Trial was violated. The Council and the Police argued that the very fact of him befriending/ borderline-associating so closely with such a well-known criminal gang which had caused so much social unrest, damage, and fear for the people in the city-centre area was enough to create reasonable suspicion that Jones would offend, and so the injunctions & curfews were valid in accordance with the 2014 which had preventative provisions in it such as the ones sought to be imposed on Jones.
Court held:The Court upheld the arguments of the Police & the Council. They affirmed that in the circumstances of crime going on for 30 years, and Jones being an associate of a well-known gang, the test for preventative injunctions to deal with this under the 2014 was met and the injunctions imposed on Jones were valid. The Court was keen to emphasise that these ‘ASBO’s’ were not actually criminal offences as such, so Jones’ right to a Fair Trial was not violated by them being imposed upon him. In short, there is not ‘guilt by association’, but there is ‘preventative injunction by association’.
Ratio-decidendi:
‘…draws attention to the following matters in particular. (1) The preventative and protective purpose of the legislation is incorporated in the requirement in section 34(3) that an injunction can be granted only if the court considers it necessary to grant an injunction for either or both of the specified purposes: to prevent the respondent from engaging in, or encouraging or assisting, gang-related violence or gang-related drug-dealing activity or to protect him from the same… Article 6(1) of the ECHR, as given effect by the HRA 1998, does not require the criminal standard of proof (ie proof beyond a reasonable doubt) to be satisfied in respect of (a) proof that a person has engaged in or has encouraged or assisted gang-related violence or gang-related drug dealing activity within section 34(2) of the 2009 Act or (b) proof that a person has engaged or threatens to engage in anti-social behaviour within section 1(1) of the 2014 Act; (2) Under Part 4 of the 2009 Act and Part 1 of the 2014 Act Parliament has devised statutory schemes which conform with the requirements of a fair hearing under article 6 of the ECHR’, Lord Lloyd Jones at 64 & 66-67
Warning: This is not professional legal advice. This is not professional legal education advice. Please obtain professional guidance before embarking on any legal course of action. This is just an interpretation of a Judgment by persons of legal insight & varying levels of legal specialism, experience & expertise. Please read the Judgment yourself and form your own interpretation of it with professional assistance.