The government’s drive to tackle antisocial behaviour has
been severely undermined by a judge’s ruling that police
can’t use force to remove unaccompanied children from curfew
zones, writes Gordon Carson
The Home Office and Metropolitan Police are already lining up an appeal against the decision by Lord Justice Brooke, saying police should be allowed to use “reasonable force” to take children home.
But human rights organisations and children’s charities have hailed the ruling as a victory for children’s rights.
The case was brought by a 15-year-old boy, known as “W”, from Richmond, southwest London, who argued that police should not be allowed to treat him “like a criminal” just because he was a young person.
It centred on a power granted to the police under section 30 of the Antisocial Behaviour Act 2003, which allows them to remove anyone under the age of 16 from a public place between 9pm and 6am if they are not accompanied by an adult, even if they are not suspected of behaving badly.
The Metropolitan Police, Richmond Council and the Home Office argued that the power allowed for the use of force, but this was disputed by the boy and the human rights organisation Liberty, which represented him in court.
Lord Justice Brooke, in backing the boy’s argument, said he was “entirely satisfied” that the power to remove under-16s was meant to be “permissive, not coercive”, and that the police could only take young people home if they agreed.
And his ruling has created major problems for councils and police forces that use the curfew powers to crack down on antisocial behaviour. A survey conducted by Liberty before the case started found that 80 per cent of police forces in England had exercised powers under section 30 of the Act. Dispersal areas varied in size from single streets to one south London zone home to several hundred thousand people, according to Liberty legal officer Alex Gask.
In London, the Metropolitan Police uses the powers in a dispersal zone created in the country’s entertainment capital, the West End. The force says it will continue to use the powers to take under-16s home where necessary, and says “child protection and vulnerability are a priority”.
A spokesperson says that in “appropriate circumstances” the Met will also use powers in section 46 of the Children Act 1989, which allows police to remove children to a place of safety if they have “reasonable cause to believe that a child would otherwise be likely to suffer significant harm”.
The London Borough of Camden Council in north London has also made use of the powers for unaccompanied under-16s, but, it claims, “only if they were taking part in anti-social behaviour that causes harassment, alarm or distress”.
In a three-month period over summer 2004, eight under-16s were removed from a zone in the Somerstown area. But now it says it is “awaiting clarification” about how the powers can be used after being informed by the police that they are unable to use force.
Although councils say the powers have been necessary to reduce antisocial behaviour – Richmond council leader Tony Arbour was concerned about the message that last week’s ruling would send to “potential young yobs” – young people are firmly against curfews.
A NOP of 1,000 10- to 16-year-olds in October 2003 found that 70 per cent of young people said police should not be given the power to move them on if they had done nothing, while 80 per cent said curfews weren’t fair because not all young people cause problems.
The Children’s Society says Lord Justice Brooke’s ruling shows that the government must listen more closely to the “heartfelt and justified criticism of some of its antisocial behaviour policies”.
Kathy Evans, the charity’s policy director, says: “It is time to stop targeting and demonising young people as the cause of the problem and include them properly as citizens and members of their communities.”
As “W” himself admits, he has “no problem” with being stopped by the police if he has done something wrong.
Ironically, police in Richmond are not exactly prolific in enforcing the powers – they have only removed one under-16 from dispersal areas in the borough.
Gask says this proves that curfews are not needed. “It shows the police already have ample powers to deal with young people causing trouble,” he says.
He has been provided with first-hand evidence about the impact of the curfew areas, having been contacted by a woman who runs a youth project located within the Richmond zone.
“She was appalled to find her project was in the middle of the zone and at a time where people leaving there were liable to be picked up,” he says.