sentencing guidelines - Social Welfare Portal

YOUTH CRIME BRIEFING MARCH 2009
Youth Crime briefing
Breach of anti-social behaviour orders
Sentencing guidelines
Contents
• Introduction page 1
• About sentencing
guidelines page 1
• Principles for making an
ASBO page 2
• Aim of sentencing for
breach page 3
• Sentencing for breach: guideline
and principles applying to young
people page 3
• Assessing seriousness of
breach page 4
• New arrangements for review of
ASBOs and making ISOs page 5
• Appendix 1 page 6
Youth Crime mailings
If you do not already subscribe,
contact Nacro Youth Crime about
our quarterly mailing of briefings.
Thanks to a generous donation
from the Howard League, we offer
a free subscription with each paid
for subscription – spreading the
word about youth justice.
Nacro Youth Crime: training,
consultancy, research and information
Park Place, 10-12 Lawn Lane
London SW8 1UD
tel: 020 7840 1203
fax: 020 7840 1213
email: youth.crime@nacro.org.uk
www.nacro.org.uk
Nacro is a registered charity. Registration no. 226171.
Nacro Youth Crime briefings are
produced in partnership with the
Howard League for Penal Reform.
Contact www.howardleague.org
Introduction
This briefing considers the
Sentencing Guidelines Council
(SGC) definitive guideline on
sentencing for breach of an antisocial
behaviour order (the
guideline). 1 The guideline deals
with sentencing for both adults
and children and young people.
However, it provides separate and
distinct guidance on the principles
for dealing with the latter when
they breach an anti-social
behaviour order (ASBO). One of
the key considerations in dealing
with a breach is the way in which
the original order was made, and
its purpose. Thus, the guideline
also sets out the principles for
making an ASBO in the first
instance. This briefing discusses
those principles and they are set
out in Appendix 1 below.
In addition, closely following the
publication of the guideline, the
Youth Justice Board (YJB),
Association of Chief Police
Officers (ACPO) and the Home
Office have published statutory
guidance on the review of ASBOs
and individual support orders
(ISO) as provided for by the
Criminal Justice and Immigration
Act 2008. 2 This guidance has been
taken into account in this briefing.
Together with the new
arrangements for reviewing
ASBOs, the guideline should
clarify issues regarding both the
making and breach of orders with
the potential to ensure better
consistency around England and
Wales, and to ensure that
prohibitions made upon
individuals are informed by the
principles set out. If applied as
described, the guideline could
reduce the number of custodial
sentences and improve the level
of support to children and young
people to help them to comply
with orders and to reduce the risk
of further criminal or anti-social
behaviour.
The guideline accordingly has
considerable implications for
practitioners involved in applying
for or making ASBOs, conducting
reviews of orders, initiating or
sentencing breach proceedings, as
well as for those providing
pre-sentence reports or
consultancy to courts.
About sentencing
guidelines
The Sentencing Guidelines Council
was established under the
Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA
2003). The SGC provides guidance
on sentencing to the criminal
courts for all age groups: adults
and children and young people.
Although there is a case for a
youth justice system that is more
distinct from that for adults, 3 the
SGC was established to provide
guidelines for the whole system.
In practice, guidelines have
sought to distinguish between
adults and juveniles to some
extent and a separate publication
is currently subject to
consultation dealing with
sentencing those aged below 18
(which will also address the
forthcoming youth rehabilitation
order).
Do you need this briefing in another format?
Tel: 020 7840 1203

Breach of anti-social behaviour orders Sentencing guidelines
The SGC produces guidelines for the sentencing of
particular offences, as well as other aspects of
sentencing, including principles that should be
applied and how matters should be allocated
(transfers and committals to crown courts, mode of
trial decisions).
Sentencing guidelines aim to improve consistency
and effectiveness in sentencing across courts and
regions, to enhance public confidence, and to
ensure fairness and equity.
The SGC aims to:
• give authoritative guidance on sentencing
• provide a lead on the approach to sentencing and
case allocation issues based on a principled
approach that commands general support
• enable sentencers to make decisions supported
by information on the effectiveness of sentences
and the most effective use of resources.
A more comprehensive description and discussion
of sentencing guidelines, including some
background on the development of guidelines
around the world, how the SGC works and is
constituted, and detail of previous guidelines as
they apply to children and young people, is
contained in a previous Nacro briefing. 4
The status of guidelines
The guidelines produced by the SGC are applicable
in all criminal courts as provided by the CJA 2003:
Every court must:
• in sentencing an offender, have regard to any
guidelines which are relevant to the offender’s
case, and
• in exercising any other function relating to the
sentencing of offenders, have regard to any
guidelines which are relevant to the exercise of the
function. 5
In addition, any court that does not act in
accordance with the guidelines must announce the
reasons for this in open court.
Principles for making an ASBO
One of the important considerations set out in the
guideline for sentencing in the case of breach of an
ASBO is how and why the order was first made.
Accordingly, the guideline clarifies the principles
and other issues that are relevant to the making of
an ASBO in the first instance.
The principles provided are worthy of careful
consideration and application in practice. They
have a particular relevance to those preparing
pre-sentence reports or responsible for other forms
of consultation where a criminal ASBO might be
made in addition to the sentence imposed for the
offence(s) before the court, to those planning for
other ASBO applications, and to those conducting
reviews of ASBOs. In some areas of England and
Wales, the principles might require changes in
practice and, potentially, a reduction in the number
of orders made as well as a new focus on the nature
and number of prohibitions imposed.
The SCG specifies as a starting point that an ASBO is
a preventative order and that it is unlawful to use it
as punishment. Nor should an ASBO be made as an
alternative, or as an additional sanction, to another
order of the court. These principles may be
particularly pertinent to the making of an ASBO (in
criminal proceedings) that does not commence until
the date of release from a custodial sentence
imposed at the same hearing. The SGC notes that,
under these circumstances, an ASBO will rarely be
appropriate where the length of a custodial
sentence exceeds 12 months at which point licence
conditions will come into effect in any event.
Although it is not discussed in detail, it may be that
the SCG had in mind both adult offenders as well as
young people who break the law in this regard,
since a detention and training order of less than
twelve months also gives rise to enforceable
conditions of supervision in the community. It
might therefore be argued that ASBOs should only
rarely be made alongside a custodial sentence of
any length unless there are clear reasons for so
doing. The potential need for prohibitions relating
to geographical location is the only example cited in
the guideline.
With regard to principles for determining the length
of an ASBO, it is recommended that the duration be
specified and that it should be proportionate to the
aim of the order and commensurate with the risk
guarded against. The length of an ASBO on a child
or young person should be determined with an eye
to the greater potential for younger people to
mature and change over a relatively short period of
time.
In addition, principles are established, or
confirmed, regarding the nature and number of
prohibitions made under an ASBO. These need not
necessarily all run for the whole length of the ASBO
period (although at least one prohibition must do
so). Use should not be made of ‘standard lists’ of
prohibitions nor, normally, should they prohibit
actual specified offences (eg taking and driving
away) which can be properly prosecuted as
required. Prohibitions should not be so numerous
or complex that they are not properly understood
by the subject of the order or that might cause
difficulty with regards to compliance.
The full summary of principles and other
considerations when making an ASBO as set down
in the guideline are included at Appendix 1 below.
page 2

YOUTH CRIME BRIEFING
European Rules for juvenile offenders
subject to sanctions or measures
New European Rules for juvenile offenders
subject to sanctions or measures, adopted by the
Council of Ministers, tend to support the SGC
guideline although, with regard to the making
and breach of ASBOs, there are also some areas
of tension that await resolution. The Rules 6
recommend, inter-alia, that:
• The imposition and implementation of sanctions
or measures shall be based on the best interests
of the juvenile offenders, limited by the gravity
of the offences committed (principle of
proportionality) and take account of their age,
physical and mental well-being, development,
capacities and personal circumstances
(principle of individualisation) ...
• Sanctions and measures shall be implemented
without undue delay and only to the extent and
for the period strictly necessary (principle of
minimum intervention)
• The juvenile’s right to privacy shall be fully
respected at all stages of the proceedings ...
• Priority shall be given to sanctions and
measures that may have an educational impact
as well as constituting a restorative response ...
• If juveniles do not comply with the conditions
and obligations of the community sanctions or
measures imposed on them, this shall not lead
automatically to deprivation of liberty. Where
possible, modified or new community sanctions
or measures shall replace the previous ones.
• Failure to comply shall not automatically
constitute an offence.
Aim of sentencing for breach
An ASBO is a preventative order and the aim of
breach, set out in the guideline, is to ‘achieve the
purpose of the order’. In sentencing for breach, the
fact that it represents a failure to comply with a
court order should be a secondary consideration.
The primary purpose of sentencing is to reflect the
harassment, alarm or distress actually involved (in
which respect, breach of an ASBO is normally
different to breach of a community order).
As mentioned above, the reason for including
principles that apply to the original making of an
ASBO is that, in order to deal with a breach
appropriately, the court should consider how and
why the order was initially made.
The guideline applies to cases being dealt with in
court but there is nothing, at least in principle,
preventing the use of ‘pre-court’ options, including
warnings and conditional cautions.
Sentencing for breach: guideline and
principles applying to young people
The guideline is clear that custody should be used
as a last resort for breach of an ASBO and that the
custody threshold should be set at a significantly
higher level than for sentencing an adult for the
same offence. The notions of sentencing thresholds
for community or custodial sentences apply as for
other offences. 7 Thus, community or custodial
sentences must be warranted by the seriousness of
the offence where no other sentence can be
justified.
In most cases, where the breach is admitted and
there are no previous convictions, the sentence will
be a referral order. 8 In other cases, the appropriate
sentence is likely to be a community sentence.
Sentencing depends, in large part, on the court’s
assessment of seriousness, taking into account
aggravating and mitigating factors, culpability and
other considerations described below. Dependent
on that assessment the guideline establishes
principles that:
• A fine or reparation order is appropriate where
the breach is less serious (such as where it did
not involve any harassment, alarm or distress).
By law, a conditional discharge is not available
for breach of an ASBO. 9
• For the custody threshold to be crossed, the
breach should normally involve serious
harassment, alarm or distress. To be considered
‘serious’, the breach should involve either the use
of violence, threats or intimidation or the
targeting of groups or individuals that led to a
fear of violence. Exceptionally, the threshold
might be crossed as a result of more than one
offence, although there should still have been a
substantial amount of harassment, alarm or
distress involved.
The principle of custody as a last resort, reflecting
the requirements of international children’s human
rights convention, lacks clear definition in domestic
law. 10 But the guideline goes some way in
strengthening the principle, and sets the normal
maximum sentence as 12 months detention, by
stating that:
even where the custody threshold is crossed, the
court should normally impose a community
sentence in preference to a DTO, as custody
should be used only as a measure of last resort;
and
where the court considers a custodial sentence to
be unavoidable, the starting point for sentencing
should be 4 months detention, with a range up to
12 months. Where a youth is being sentenced for
more than one breach involving serious
harassment, alarm or distress, the sentence may
go beyond that range.
page 3

Breach of anti-social behaviour orders Sentencing guidelines
In addition, it might be noted that the equivalent
guideline for adults gives a starting point of six
weeks custody, a period that is not available for
children and young people due to the minimum
length of a detention and training order being set at
four months. The guideline indicates that:
The custody threshold should be set at a
significantly higher level than the threshold
applicable to adult offenders.
The only form of custody available for breach of
ASBO in the case of a child below the age of 18
years is a detention and training order. (An order
under section 91 of the Powers of Criminal Courts
(Sentencing) Act 2000 is not available). As a
consequence, there is no power to impose custody
on a child aged 10 or 11 and detention is only
available for a child aged from 12 to 14 only where
if the court considers him or her to be a ‘persistent
offender’. 11
Where a court imposes a community sentence and
leaves the ASBO in force, any requirements imposed
should not be so onerous, in combination with
ASBO prohibitions, that further breach is likely.
The welfare of the child or young person remains a
factor that the court must take into account 12 but, in
the case of sentencing for breach of an ASBO, this is
balanced against the interests of the public. 13 The
guideline notes that the best interests of the child
must be ‘a primary consideration’ in accordance
with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of
the Child and the ‘Beijing Rules’. 14 The SGC has, in
this guideline and others, stressed the relevance of
intellectual and emotional maturity as a
consideration that should influence sentencing and
notes that this should not always be detemined on
the basis of chronological age alone. Thus, the
guideline states that:
A young offender is likely to perceive a particular
time period as being longer in comparison with
an adult, and this may be of relevance when
considering how much time has elapsed between
imposition and breach of the order.
Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the
guideline, if followed, should result in custody for
ASBO breaches in exceptional and rare
circumstances only.
Assessing seriousness of breach
Essential considerations
Initial assessment of seriousness of a breach is
based on the culpability of the offender and the
level of harm that was caused, was intended or was
foreseeable. 15 These may be supplemented by
consideration of aggravating and mitigating factors.
Culpability is not a term that is always understood
by children and young people who might better
grasp the concept as the amount of blame, fault or
criminality involved in their breach of a prohibition.
The SGC has previously set out levels of culpability
to assist courts in assessing seriousness. These
range from the highest level involving intention to
cause harm, through recklessness (as to harm being
caused), does not intend harm (although aware of
the possibility), through to the lower level of
negligence. 16 Culpability can be, or even should be,
reduced in the case of children and young people as
a result of their lower intellectual or emotional
maturity. Ashford, Chard and Redhouse identify
some psychological features that may reduce
culpability, including: 17
• poor reasoning and problem-solving skills
• the tendency for sensation-seeking
• increased impulsivity
• susceptibility to peer pressure.
In outlining the approach to assessing culpability
with regard to the seriousness of a breach of an
ASBO, the guideline identifies two aspects, to do
with intent to breach and intent to cause harm.
Firstly, consideration should be given to the degree
of intention to breach the order. This is ‘variable’
but reflects the levels of culpability mentioned
above. Thus, the person may have intended the
breach, been reckless as to whether there was a
breach, was merely aware of the risk of breach or, at
the lower level, have been unaware of the risk of
breach due to a lack of understanding of the
prohibition(s).
Secondly, consideration should be given to the
degree to which the child or young person intended
to cause the harm that resulted or could have
resulted (or been foreseen). Harm may be harm
caused to an individual, individuals or to the
community or public at large. With regard to
whether harm was foreseeable, the main test is that
which would apply to ‘a reasonable person’. The
SGC has previously stated that where harm was not
easily foreseeable, the resulting lower level of
culpability should carry more weight than the
assessed level of harm. 18 Additionally, the
assessment of seriousness can take into account
whether the breach of a prohibition is relevant
directly to the behaviour that the original ASBO was
intended to prevent. Where in other words the
young person engages in the kind of behaviour that
led to an ASBO being imposed in the first place, the
breach is likely to be more serious than where the
behaviour is of a different sort.
The guideline also confirms that the court may take
into account, as one aspect of harm, the potential
undermining of public confidence in the
effectiveness of measures to address anti-social
behaviour that might arise from the breach of a
court ordered ASBO.
page 4

YOUTH CRIME BRIEFING
Breach of interim order
The guideline is clear that breach of an interim
order is of equal seriousness to the breach of a final
order and that the approach to sentencing is the
same. Sentencing should not be delayed to await the
final hearing for the making of a final order
although if they can be dealt with together that is
preferable.
Sentencing where a breach constitutes a
new offence(s)
Where a young person is taken to court for breach
of an ASBO and the behaviour that constituted the
breach represents an offence in its own right, there
are a number of different possibilities. The court
may be dealing with:
• an offence of breach only, but one in which the
circumstances of the breach constitute conduct
that could have been charged as a new
substantive offence, or
• a substantive offence only, but one in which the
conduct also constituted a breach of an ASBO
prohibition, or
• both offences (breach and new offence)
Whichever of these apply, two main principles are
set out in the guideline. Firstly, the result should be
the same according to the facts and relevant aspects
of the offence. Secondly, where the maximum
sentence for the breach is greater than the
maximum for the other offence (which could have
been, or was, charged), the court should take this
into account when determining what would
constitute a proportionate disposal (but is not
limited by it).
Aggravating and mitigating factors
The previous SGC guideline on seriousness 19
contains a considerable number of examples of
aggravating and mitigating factors, many of which
might be relevant to breach of an ASBO. More
specifically, the guideline gives some examples of
aggravating and mitigating factors that could be
considered (these apply to adult offenders):
Aggravating factors include:
• the young person has a history of disobedience
to court orders
• the breach was committed immediately or shortly
after the ASBO was made
• the breach was committed subsequent to earlier
breach proceedings arising from the same order
• there was targeting of a person the order was
made to protect or a witness in the original
proceedings.
Examples of mitigating factors are:
• the breach occurred after a long period of
compliance
• the prohibition(s) breached was not fully
understood, especially where an interim order
was made without notice.
Personal mitigation
Personal mitigation can be a factor in reducing the
severity of sentence (along with other
considerations such as a timely guilty plea). The
guideline suggests that personal offender mitigation
is particularly important in cases of breach of an
ASBO because compliance depends on the ability of
the subject to understand the prohibitions and
terms of the order and to make rational decisions in
relation to them. The guideline makes specific
comment on sentencing children and young people,
as mentioned earlier in this briefing, but also
includes examples that might lead to mitigation of
sentence for people of all ages:
• the defendant has a lower level of understanding
due to mental health issues or learning
difficulties
• the defendant was acting under the influence of
an older or more experienced offender
• there has been compliance with an individual
support order or intervention order imposed
when the ASBO was made.
New arrangements for review of
ASBOs and making ISOs
The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008
introduces a new requirement to conduct reviews of
ASBOs imposed on children and young people. It
also amends the provisions in relation to individual
support orders (ISOs) with the intention of
encouraging an increase in the use of the latter. One
of the purposes (among others) of requiring an
annual review of an ASBO (the first review should
normally be conducted within twelve months of the
order being made) is to check the level of
compliance with the order and its prohibitions.
Thus, if good practice is established in line with the
guidance, a reduction in breach proceedings might
be achieved. The review process is intended to
reflect the need to support children and young
people and assist with compliance, rather than
merely to enforce prohibitions. In the light of a
review, a further application to a court might be
made to discharge the ASBO where it is no longer
considered necessary, or to modify it. The latter
might involve varying the order by adding, reducing
or amending the prohibitions attached to it.
Prior to the legislative changes, there was a
statutory presumption that the court should impose
an ISO alongside an ASBO, made in civil proceedings
page 5

Breach of anti-social behaviour orders Sentencing guidelines
against a young person below the age of 18 years, if
the court formed the opinion that an ISO would help
to prevent further anti-social behaviour. The new
legislative provisions extend that presumption to
ASBOs made in criminal proceedings and county
courts. In addition, an application for an ISO can
now be made at any point while the ASBO remains
in force, whether or not one was made at the
original hearing. For instance, an application for an
ISO is one of the options that might be considered
as part of an annual review of an ASBO.
An ISO lasts for a maximum of six months, and the
revised legislation permits authorities to seek a
second (or subsequent) order when the existing one
expires, providing that the length of the ISO does
not exceed the remaining life of the ASBO. In
combination, the changes mean that more ISOs can
be anticipated in the coming period.
Appendix 1
Summary of principles and other
considerations relevant to the making of an
anti-social behaviour order
1. Proceedings for the imposition of an ASBO are
civil in nature, so that hearsay evidence is
admissible, but a court must be satisfied to a
criminal standard that the individual has acted
in the anti-social manner alleged.
2. The test of ‘necessity’ requires the exercise of
judgement or evaluation; it does not require
proof beyond reasonable doubt that the order is
‘necessary’.
3. It is particularly important that the findings of
fact giving rise to the making of the order are
recorded by the court.
4. As the ASBO is a preventative order it is
unlawful to use it as a punishment; so, when
sentencing an offender, a court must not allow
itself to be diverted into making an ASBO as an
alternative or additional sanction.
5. The police have powers to arrest an individual
for any criminal offence, and the court should
not impose an order which prohibits the subject
from committing an offence if it will not add
significantly to the existing powers of the police
to protect others from anti-social behaviour by
the subject. An order must not prohibit a
criminal offence merely to increase the sentence
range available for that offence.
6. The terms of the order made must be precise
and capable of being understood by the
subject. 20 Where the subject is aged below
18 years, it is important for both the subject
and the parent or guardian to confirm their
understanding of the order and its terms. The
prohibitions must be enforceable in the sense
that they should allow a breach to be readily
identified and capable of being proved.
7. An order should not impose a ‘standard list’ of
prohibitions, but should identify and prohibit
the particular type of anti-social behaviour that
gives rise to the necessity of an ASBO. Each
separate prohibition must be necessary to
protect persons from anti-social behaviour by
the subject, and each order must be specifically
fashioned to deal with the individual concerned.
8. The order must be proportionate to the
legitimate aim pursued and commensurate with
the risk guarded against. The court should avoid
making compliance very difficult through the
imposition of numerous prohibitions, and those
that will cause great disruption to the subject
should be considered with particular care. It is
advisable to make an order for a specific period;
when considering the duration of an order
imposed on a youth, the potential for the
subject to mature may be a relevant factor.
9. Not all prohibitions set out in an ASBO have to
run for the full term of the ASBO itself. The test
must always be what is necessary to deal with
the particular anti-social behaviour of the
offender and what is proportionate in the
circumstances. At least one of the prohibitions
must last for the duration of the order but not
all are required to last for the two years that is
the minimum length of an order. The court can
vary the terms of an order at any time upon
application by the subject (or the applicant in
the case of an order made upon application).
10. When making an order upon conviction, the
court has the power to suspend its terms until
the offender has been released from a custodial
sentence. However, where a custodial sentence
of 12 months or more is imposed and the
offender is liable to be released on licence and
thus subject to recall, an order will not generally
be necessary. There might be cases where
geographical restraints could supplement
licence conditions.
11. Other considerations:
(i) Where an ASBO is imposed on a subject aged
10 – 17, the court must consider whether a
parenting order would be desirable in the
interests of preventing repetition of the antisocial
behaviour. Such an order must be made
where the young person is aged below 16 years
and the condition is met, but is discretionary
where the young person is aged 16 or 17.
(ii) Where a magistrates’ court imposes an ASBO
on a young person, it must also consider
whether an individual support order (ISO) would
be desirable to tackle the underlying causes of
the behaviour.
(iii) In the case of an adult, the court may make
an intervention order if the underlying causes of
the anti-social behaviour are drug-related and
appropriate treatment is available.
page 6

YOUTH CRIME BRIEFING
12. Interim orders:
Where a decision to impose an order (either
upon application or conviction) is pending, the
court may make an interim order if it considers
it just to do so. The court must balance the
seriousness of the behaviour and the urgency
with which it is necessary to take steps to
control it, with the likely impact of an interim
order upon the potential subject. 21
page 7

Breach of anti-social behaviour orders Sentencing guidelines
References
1 Sentencing Guidelines Council (December 2008) Breach of
an anti-social behaviour order: definitive Guideline.
Available at http://www.sentencing-guidelines.gov.uk/
2 YJB/ACPO/Home Office (2009) A Guide to Reviewing
Anti-social Behaviour Orders given to Young People and
Individual Support Orders. Available at http://www.
respect.gov.uk/uploadedFiles/Members_site/Documents_
and_images/Enforcement_tools_and_powers/ASBO_
ISOReviewGuideJan09_0157.pdf
3 This is in line with international convention, treaties and
rules for juvenile justice, including the United Nations
Convention on the Rights of the Child available at
www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm
4 See Nacro (2007) Sentencing guidelines for juveniles: part
one. Youth crime briefing, December 2007. Nacro.
Available for download at http://www.nacro.org.uk/data/
resources/nacro-2008050100.pdf
5 See section 172 of Criminal Justice Act 2003
6 Recommendation CM/Rec(2008)11 of the Committee of
Ministers to member states on the European Rules for
juvenile offenders subject to sanctions or measures
Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 5 November
2008. Available at www.europeanrights.eu/getFile.
php?name=public/atti/racc_ing.doc
7 Sections 148(1) and 152(2) of Criminal Justice Act 2003
8 But note that a court dealing with a breach of an
individual support order does not have a referral order
available
9 Section 1(11) of Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Note that
this precludes the use of a conditional discharge but not
an absolute discharge
10 The SCG previously published a useful guideline to assist
with determining sentencing thresholds. See: Sentencing
Guidelines Council (2004) Overarching Principles:
seriousness available at www.sentencing-guidelines.gov.uk
11 For further details of the availability of the detention and
training order, see Nacro (2007) The detention and training
order: current position and future developments. Youth
crime briefing, June 2007. Nacro
12 Section 44 of Children and Young Persons Act 1933. Also
note the relevance of welfare in sentencing included in
section 11 of Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008
13 The guideline refers to the judgement in R (A) v Leeds
Magistrates’ Court [2004] EWHC Admin 554 which held
that in the case of a child, the child’s best interests are a
primary consideration but so are the interests of the
public
14 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child
(particularly Article 3), available at www2.ohchr.org/
english/law/crc.htm . The ‘Beijing Rules’ are the United
Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration
of Juvenile Justice, available at www.ohchr.org
15 Section 143(1) of Criminal Justice Act 2003
16 Sentencing Guidelines Council (2004) Overarching
Principles: Seriousness available at www.sentencingguidelines.gov.uk
17 Ashford, M, Chard, A, Redhouse, N (2006) Defending Young
People in the Criminal Justice System (Third Edition). Legal
Action Group. London
18 SGC (2004) op cit
19 SGC (2004) op cit
20 A Guide for the Judiciary produced by the Judicial Studies
Board (third edition published January 2007) provides a
list of examples of prohibitions that the higher courts
have found to be too wide or poorly drafted.
See www.jsboard.co.uk
21 Leeds Magistrates’ Court, ex parte Kenny; Secretary of State
for Constitutional Affairs and another, ex parte M [2004]
EWCA Civ 312
page 8