Key Facts
- •Leeds City Council appealed a magistrates' court ruling refusing extensions to three closure orders under the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.
- •The orders aimed to address anti-social car cruising events in three locations.
- •The magistrates' court found the orders did not meet the definition of 'premises' and improperly restricted access.
- •The appeal concerned the meaning of 'premises' (open spaces vs. particular properties) and the permissible scope of prohibitions (excluding specific activities vs. detailing permitted access).
Legal Principles
Interpretation of statutes requires identifying the objectively correct meaning, while application involves objectively reasonable evaluative judgment.
Judgment of Mr Justice Fordham
'Premises' in Part 4 Chapter 3 of the 2014 Act includes any land or other place (whether enclosed or not), but requires an objectively identifiable distinctive property or part thereof.
Judgment of Mr Justice Fordham
A closure order may prohibit access by all persons except those specified, at all times except those specified, or in all circumstances except those specified, but it cannot prohibit specific activities.
Judgment of Mr Justice Fordham
The availability of Public Spaces Protection Orders (PSPOs) is irrelevant to the legality of closure orders; they are overlapping but distinct powers.
Judgment of Mr Justice Fordham
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The magistrates' court was correct in finding that the closure orders did not meet the definition of 'premises' and improperly restricted access.