header-logo header-logo

09 April 2018
Categories: Legal News , Criminal
printer mail-detail

Mounting concern about anti-social behaviour injunctions

Anti-social behaviour injunctions will be the subject of a conference this month at Bristol Civil Justice Centre.

One of the drivers behind the event is a lack of consistency in the use and application of the legislation, especially on breach, in different parts of the country. Conference delegates will focus on 14 questions, including what difficulties exist in terms of getting legal aid and representation;  whether issues such as mental health and addiction should be investigated before the hearing; and what behaviour should be covered.

The event is being organised by His Honour Judge Cotter QC, Designated Civil Judge for Avon, Somerset and Gloucester, and member of the Civil Justice Council (CJC).

These injunctions were introduced in 2015 by the Anti-Social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014 and replaced the much-maligned Anti-Social Behaviour Order and other relief including Injunctions and Drinking Banning Orders.

The CJC says there is growing concern about the way such injunctions are being sought and/or used; the powers afforded to the courts (principally the county court, although the youth court can grant civil injunctions against juveniles); the limited powers available to the county court on breach; whether third parties should be involved in the process, and whether breaches of these orders are then a shortcut to mandatory possession orders.

Views are also sought from practitioners such as social landlords and local authorities who use such orders and may feel the relief is being effectively and properly used.

The discussion forum is open to all, and written representations are equally welcome.

Requests to attend or to submit written representations may be sent to: Gail.Houlden@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk.

Categories: Legal News , Criminal
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Kennedys—Milan Devani

Kennedys—Milan Devani

Chief information officer appointment strengthens technology leadership

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Firm strengthens Wilmslow team with two solicitor appointments

DWF—Ian Plumley

DWF—Ian Plumley

Londoninsurance and reinsurance practice announces partner appointment

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll