Page 19 - tmp

Lord Hutton
For the reasons which I have given I would dismiss the appeals of A the McCann defendants
and would declare that the House had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal of the defendant
Clingham.
LORD HOBHOUSE OF WOODBOROUGH
My Lords, for the reasons given by my noble and learned friends Lord Steyn and Lord Hope
of Craighead and in agreement with the opinion
of my noble and learned friend Lord Hutton, in particular what he has said e in paragraph 113
of his opinion, I too would make the orders proposed.
LORD SCOTT OF FOSCOTE
My Lords, I agree that for the reasons given in the opinions of my noble and learned friends,
Lord Steyn, Lord Hope of Craighead and Lord Hutton, the appeal in the McCann case should
be dismissed and in the Clingham case the House should make the order proposed by Lord
Steyn.
I, like my noble and learned friend Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough, am in full agreement
with what Lord Hutton has said in paragraph 1.13 of his opinion.
Appeals in McCann case dismissed. Declaration that no jurisdiction to hear appeal in
Clingham case.
Solicitors: Peter Kandler & Co; Burton Copeland, Manchester; James Welch; Director of
Legal Services, Kensington, and Chelsea Royal London Borough Council; Winckworth
Sherwood; Treasury Solicitor.
PART 5 © SWEET & MAXWELL
53,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton Argument (2) Pdf
Page: 17
R. v DEAN BONESS AND OTHERS
COURT OF APPEAL (Lord Justice Hooper, Mr Justice Roderick Evans, and Mr Justice
Pitchers): October 14, 2005
[2005] EWCA Crim 2395; [2006] I Cr. App. R. (S.) 120
Anti-social behaviour orders; Sentencing guidelines
Crime and Disorder Act 1998, S. 1 C—antisocial behaviour order on conviction—general
considerations
H2 Observations on the considerations which are relevant to the making of orders under the
Crime and Disorder Act 1998, s. 1C.
H3 Bones: the appellant pleaded guilty to one count of burglary of a dwelling and
one of handling stolen goods. The appellant and another person entered an unoccupied house
and stole items to the value of £4,800. Following another burglary, the next day, a search of
the appellant’s home resulted in the discovery of property stolen in that burglary. The
appellant had six previous appearances for offences involving vehicle crime, attempted
burglary, violence, handling stolen goods and using threatening behaviour. He was subject to
two community orders at the time of the offences. Sentenced to three years’ detention in a
young offender institution, and subjected to an order under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998,
S.1 for a period of five years’ prohibiting him from entering any public car park within a
specified area except in the course of lawful employment, entering any land or building on
land which formed part of educational premises except as an enrolled pupil, wearing or
having with him in any public place anything which covered or could be used to cover the
face or part the face, having with him in a public place any item which could be used in the
commission of a burglary or theft from vehicles except one door or bicycle lock key, having
possession of any article or carried in public any vehicle that could be used as a weapon,
remaining on any shop, commercial or hospital premises if asked to leave by staff or entering

Page 17 of 139