QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
B e f o r e :
|THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF RICARDO OZZIE WALKLING||(CLAIMANT)|
|THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS||(DEFENDANT)|
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
MR J MARSDEN-LYNCH (instructed by CPS Maidstone) appeared on behalf of the DEFENDANT
Crown Copyright ©
"(i) The Appellant appeared before the Mid Kent Magistrates' Court on 12th November 2001 to answer a complaint for an anti-social behaviour order to be made against him by the Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council.
"(ii) The Appellant was legally represented prior to, and throughout, the hearing;
"(iii) At that hearing, the Appellant's legal representative informed the court that the Appellant consented to the making of an anti-social behaviour order;
"(iv) The Chairman of the Bench then pronounced the making of an anti-social behaviour order against the Appellant for a period of two years;
"(v) This pronouncement was recorded contemporaneously on the court file as an anti-social behaviour order for two years;
"(vi) The pronouncement was subsequently recorded in the court register as an anti-social behaviour order made for a period of two years;
"(vii) A document purporting to be an anti-social behaviour order had been drawn up and agreed between the parties prior to the hearing on the 12th November 2001;
"(viii) This document recorded the Appellant as being subject to an anti-social behaviour order 'until 10th November 2003'.
"(ix) The document was handed to the Chairman of the Bench at the hearing on the 12th November 2003.
"(x) Following the Chairman's pronouncement of the order, a copy of the document signed by him was handed to the parties for distribution.
"(xi) On the 13th December 2002, representatives of the Police, believing the order of 12th November 2001 to be defective, applied for an interim anti-social behaviour order without notice before District Judge Kelly sitting at Maidstone Magistrates' Court.
"(xii) District Judge Kelly refused the application because he found that the order was correctly recorded on the court register as being for two years and was therefore not defective;
"(xiii) The anti-social behaviour order of 12th November 2001 was a valid order."
"An anti-social behaviour order shall have effect for a period (not less than two years) specified in the order or until further order."
"Except with the consent of both parties, no anti-social behaviour order shall be discharged before the end of the period of two years beginning with the date of service of that order".