Carter v Crown Prosecution Service

Carter v Crown Prosecution Service

The appeal was allowed because the prosecution failed to prove the making and validity of the authorisation under section 30 of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 and failed to demonstrate compliance with the statutory publicity requirements. The magistrates erred in law by relying on oral evidence and the 'Dispersal Order' rather than the statutory authorisation.

Parties
Appellant: Kieron Carter; Respondent: Crown Prosecution Service
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Magistrates' Court to High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; matter remitted with direction to acquit the appellant.
Legal Topics
Anti Social Behaviour Orders, Proof of Authorisation, Case Management, Publicity Requirements
Criminal Law Administrative Law Anti Social Behaviour Orders Proof of Authorisation Case Management Publicity Requirements

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kieron Carter

Appellant

Crown Prosecution Service

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Magistrates' Court to High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prosecution proved the validity of the authorisation under section 30 of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003
  2. 2 Whether proper publicity was given as required by section 31 of the Act
  3. 3 Whether the magistrates erred in law by relying on oral evidence and the 'Dispersal Order' instead of the statutory authorisation

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the prosecution failed to prove the making and validity of the authorisation under section 30 of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 and failed to demonstrate compliance with the statutory publicity requirements. The magistrates erred in law by relying on oral evidence and the 'Dispersal Order' rather than the statutory authorisation.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; matter remitted with direction to acquit the appellant.

Orders

  • The appellant is to be acquitted.
  • No further prosecution on the same offence is permitted.