UK REPORT

Boy, 15, overturns youth curfews

A 15-year-old boy yesterday dealt a serious blow to the use of curfew zones, a cornerstone of the government's “anti-yob” legislation.

The teenager, from the London borough of Richmond and referred to as “W” for legal reasons, was granted a High Court declaration that the police do not have the power to use reasonable force to take home unaccompanied young people found in curfew areas after 9pm.
W's parents launched his landmark case, arguing that the liberty of children who were law-abiding should not be curtailed because of the anti-social behaviour of others.
Two senior judges ruled that the 2003 Anti-Social Behaviour Act only conferred on police express power to take home “those willing to be taken home”.
Tony Arbour, Richmond council's leader said he was “very disappointed” that “a useful tool” to keep Richmond safe had been “more or less neutered”.

A Home Office spokeswoman said there would be an appeal against the ruling, made by Lord Justice Brooke and Mr Justice Mitting.
The spokeswoman said that although the ruling would not affect a police force's ability to authorise “dispersal areas”, it did mean that officers could do nothing if a child refused to be taken home. She said: “We believe that the police should have reasonable force to take children home.”
The judges said: “If parliament considered that such a power was needed, it should have said so, and identified the circumstances in which it intended the power to be exercised.”

In a statement afterwards, W said: “I have no problem with being stopped by the police if I've done something wrong. But they shouldn't be allowed to treat me like a criminal just because I'm under 16.”
W was affected by two curfew zones. The first was introduced in summer last year in Richmond town centre because of police concerns “that large numbers of people, often binge drinking, became involved in anti-social behaviour”.
The second applied over the Christmas and New Year period to the Ashburnham Road area in Ham, Surrey, where there had been scores of disturbances in public places, plus reports of graffiti and criminal damage to vehicles.
W, who lived in the area, first became aware of the new curfew laws when he visited Richmond town centre in June last year after a school trip to central London.
The judge said W was “extremely distressed” after a community support officer who had been watching him and a friend warned him that the curfew zone was in existence and that he could be forcibly taken home by the police.
He did not feel he could return to the town centre in the evenings without his parents.

The Ashburnham Road curfew zone also affected him as, for example, he felt unable to take a bus home after band practice in nearby Kingston and had the “embarrassment” of having to rely on someone else for a lift home.
He also felt unable to go to the local Tesco store for his parents after 9pm, and felt “uncomfortable” walking the short distance back to his home from a friend's house.
His challenge to police powers was backed by the human rights pressure group Liberty.
Alex Gask, Liberty's legal officer acting for W, said : “This is a victory for the presumption of innocence, and the right of everyone, no matter what their age, not to be subjected to coercive powers without good cause.”
Kathy Evans, the Children's Society spokeswoman, said: “One of the lessons for the government from this ruling is that they need to listen more closely to the heartfelt and justified criticism of some of their anti-social behaviour policies.”

Paper exercise
Curfews were pioneered in Hamilton, Lanarkshire, in 1997. Initiated by Strathclyde Police and South Lanarkshire Council, the scheme is, technically, still in existence.
But after the initial fanfare it was deemed too “resource intensive” as a separate strand of law enforcement.
Police and the council confirmed yesterday that officers still keep vulnerable children off the streets. On paper the curfew, piloted in three housing schemes, was a success and reduced crime by 23 per cent.
It was to be the first of many, but the concept was dogged by the civil liberties issue. Campaigners claimed young people were denied a presumption of innocence.
The dusk-to-dawn curfew for under-16s was a response to residents' fears of youth crime. The original plan suggested youths could be lifted if they could not offer “satisfactory explanations”.

But police backed down before the curfew began, saying they would not interfere with teenagers' “legitimate pursuits” and would concentrate instead on protecting the very young.
The scheme was launched amid a media circus, but was declared an immediate farce when a house was set on fire by vandals hours after the press exercise. Within a week, dozens of children had been rounded up, including a four-year-old boy.
The curfew became a game, with mischievous youngsters declaring, in their own words, they were “taking the p*** oot the polis”.
Parents were also resistant, claiming that officers should be targeting drug dealers.

John Aston and Jim McBeth
21 July 2005

http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=1659442005

home / Previous feature