Wareham v Purbeck District Council

Wareham v Purbeck District Council

A proposed defendant to an anti-social behaviour order is not entitled as of right to be consulted or heard before the authority applies to the magistrates’ court. The statutory scheme and Articles 6 and 8 ECHR do not require such consultation, as the right to be heard is fully protected at the court hearing.

Parties
Appellant: Carl Wareham; Respondent: Purbeck District Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 March 2005
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Magistrates’ Court Decision Regarding Anti Social Behaviour Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Anti Social Behaviour Orders, Right to Be Heard, Article 6 ECHR, Article 8 ECHR
Human Rights Law Administrative Law Criminal Law (civil Proceedings) Anti Social Behaviour Orders Right to Be Heard Article 6 ECHR Article 8 ECHR

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Carl Wareham

Appellant

Purbeck District Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Magistrates’ Court Decision Regarding Anti Social Behaviour Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a person subject to a potential anti-social behaviour order has a right to be consulted or heard before the authority applies to court
  2. 2 Whether Articles 6 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights require such a right

Ratio Decidendi

A proposed defendant to an anti-social behaviour order is not entitled as of right to be consulted or heard before the authority applies to the magistrates’ court. The statutory scheme and Articles 6 and 8 ECHR do not require such consultation, as the right to be heard is fully protected at the court hearing.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The decision of the District Judge is affirmed; there was no breach of Articles 6 or 8 ECHR by not consulting the appellant prior to the application for an anti-social behaviour order.