Sign in to follow this  
rosco

S.27 Direction to Leave

Recommended Posts

Hi,

I've always understood the S.27 Notice to Leave as being applicable only to people that you believe may be involved in alcohol-related ASB if you do not issue one, as in they do not necessarily have to be drunk/drinking but could be supplying alcohol to people who would, or enticing a group who had been drinking to cause problems.

However, I've had officers who think that it can be issued for general ASB as well, and who read the alcoholo-related bit as an "or" and not necessary to have to issue the DtL.

What do others thinks, what is the basis in law?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

I've always understood the S.27 Notice to Leave as being applicable only to people that you believe may be involved in alcohol-related ASB if you do not issue one, as in they do not necessarily have to be drunk/drinking but could be supplying alcohol to people who would, or enticing a group who had been drinking to cause problems.

However, I've had officers who think that it can be issued for general ASB as well, and who read the alcoholo-related bit as an "or" and not necessary to have to issue the DtL.

What do others thinks, what is the basis in law?

The direction to leave is subject to a "test". The test, as referred to by the Act in para 2(a) is that the crime and disorder is alcohol related. I'm not aware of any amendment that removes the requirement for the alcohol to be a factor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never been specifically pointed out to the "alcohol related" part of this and have always just based it on ASB, but looking at the legislation it does seem grey as it could be read as:

  • Alcohol related (crime or disorder) or
  • (Alcohol related crime) or disorder

Directions to individuals who represent a risk of disorder

(1)If the test in subsection (2) is satisfied in the case of an individual aged 16 or over who is in a public place, a constable in uniform may give a direction to that individual—

(a)requiring him to leave the locality of that place; and

(b)prohibiting the individual from returning to that locality for such period (not exceeding 48 hours) from the giving of the direction as the constable may specify.

(2)That test is—

(a)that the presence of the individual in that locality is likely, in all the circumstances, to cause or to contribute to the occurrence of alcohol-related crime or disorder in that locality, or to cause or to contribute to a repetition or continuance there of such crime or disorder; and

(b)that the giving of a direction under this section to that individual is necessary for the purpose of removing or reducing the likelihood of there being such crime or disorder in that locality during the period for which the direction has effect or of there being a repetition or continuance in that locality during that period of such crime or disorder.

From Clicky

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has to be alcohol related, it's quite clear in the legislation, but that doesn't mean alcohol has to have been consumed. For example, if Mr J Bloggs has been to the High Street off licence every Friday night for the past three weeks, bought and consumed a quantity of alcohol and then caused trouble outside the shop, if he turned up on a fourth Friday at the same place it would be reasonable to assume that the same events would unfold. Therefore a Sec 27 would be appropriate. A bit specific perhaps, but it illustrates the point.

A Sec 27 can be given to a member of a group that is likely to cause trouble, even if he/she hasn't been drinking but others have.

The OP's first paragraph is correct - it must be alcohol related and just ASB would not justify the issuing of a Sec 27.

Having said all that, I have seen officers issue them when the Subsection 2 test hasn't been met. Not my problem though, as I don't have to justify other officers' actions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The OP's first paragraph is correct - it must be alcohol related and just ASB would not justify the issuing of a Sec 27.

Having said all that, I have seen officers issue them when the Subsection 2 test hasn't been met. Not my problem though, as I don't have to justify other officers' actions.

I think that you and Rosco have raised a good point. I wonder whether we'll see some form of policy review, or a test case, at some point in the future.

Edited by Smiley Culture

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never been specifically pointed out to the "alcohol related" part of this and have always just based it on ASB, but looking at the legislation it does seem grey as it could be read as:

  • Alcohol related (crime or disorder) or
  • (Alcohol related crime) or disorder

From Clicky

I do struggle to see where the difficultly working out this VERY useful bit of law is?

Disorder/crime=Yes

Alcohol somewhere=Yes

Over 10=Yes

Direction to leave, arrestable if breach this notice.

The understanding of where the alcohol is coming from might be dubious, but as long as within your process, it is reasonable, not totally made up, then you will be ok. Crime is obvious or should be to a Police officer, as is disorder, as if you can't graps these, then some more fundermental knowledge should be gained. Several threads on good practice as well, such as CCTV support or maps etc. Attempting to over imagine the requirements is likely the major hurdel people fall at.

Really is very easy to apply, powerful and easy to deal with if people bother to read the act/be taught it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what the post is getting at (and one of my REGULAR INSPECTORS too...!) is that the "test" in section two words it like this...

"Alcohol related crime or disorder"

Now until I see a test case, that to me COULD read as alcohol related crime being one part and disorder being another, thus the (alcohol related crime) or (disorder)

It is down to interpretation at the moment, unless you can tell me that there has been a test case or that there is any other wording that alcohol has to be involved other than this?

Where does it actually say that the disorder has to be alcohol related? Alcohol related crime, yes, no argument, but the "OR" throws it open to interpretation. If I said "violent crime or fraud" would it automatically mean the fraud had to be violent?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where does it actually say that the disorder has to be alcohol related? Alcohol related crime, yes, no argument, but the "OR" throws it open to interpretation. If I said "violent crime or fraud" would it automatically mean the fraud had to be violent?

Looking at where S.27 sits within the chapter headings of the Violent Crime Reduction Act [ http://www.legislati...006/38/contents ], my interpretation is that it means alcohol-related crime or alcohol-related disorder. But I should add that I'm no legal expert...

Edited by Smiley Culture

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm not so sure, I've read a bit of the committee debate on hansard last night and it seemed to indicate it was intended to address asb as well as alcohol related crime. Haven't read all of it though so could very well be they changed their minds towards the final debates

Edit: re-read it and the act, quite clear it specifically only refers to alcohol related crime or alcohol related disorder. This is because:

1) The subsection is labelled 'Alcohol related disorder in public places' http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/38/contents

2) Reading the debate on hansard the questions raised are centred around whether alcohol related disorder should be included in the bill as well as alcohol related crime since it was put forward that we already have s5 and drunk+disorderly to deal with those kind of offences therefore it would follow that they were focusing only on alcohol related asb not general asb. Example given was a person urinating out of view of the public may not be a criminal offence but could be alcohol related disorder http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmstand/b/st051018/am/51018s01.htm

Edited by BristolSam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is rather wishful thinking to try and remove the alcohol requirement from s.27 orders. Regardless of what is in Hansard the wording in the final act is quite precise. Nicking someone for a breach of a s. 27 order which was incorrectly issued in the first place isn't a good thing to start doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is rather wishful thinking to try and remove the alcohol requirement from s.27 orders. Regardless of what is in Hansard the wording in the final act is quite precise. Nicking someone for a breach of a s. 27 order which was incorrectly issued in the first place isn't a good thing to start doing.

Hansard shows it is aimed at alcohol related asb?

Not sure I'd agree it's quite precise though, if it was there wouldn't be this much discussion around it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is there such a issue about working out if it is for ASB or crime? as they go hand in hand and are often 1 and the same, or ASB leading to substantive crime.

In another current post on S.27s i included a section of the guidence from the forms, which allows and suggests S.50 (names and addresses) may be used, which is part of the 'ASB tool kit' suggesting to me that the S.27 noyice can be used for both early intervention of substantive crime e.g Crim Dam/Public order or to curtail ASB (from escalating to substative crime or causing disorder).

Strikes me that too much reference to legal text books and not enough practical police work muddys the otherwise clear waters. Lets not forget that regardless of what your mate next to you says or Hansard (who ever he(?) is?), YOU have to justifiy YOUR actions 100% of the time.

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are 11 hidden replies in this thread that you do not currently have access to as a Guest User of our forum. To unlock the forum register for an account for FREE today by clicking HERE
Sign in to follow this