In this case, our client, Whitefriars Housing Group (Whitefriars) made an application to Coventry Magistrates' Court for an Antisocial Behaviour Order (ASBO) pursuant to s1(1) of the Crime & Disorder Act 1988 as amended by the Police Reform Act 2002.
The defendant had previously been a licensee of Whitefriars and, due to his nuisance and antisocial behaviour, had been evicted from his hostel accommodation.
However, following his eviction, the defendant continued to return to the hostel grounds and was regularly found asleep both in the gardens and in communal areas.
The defendant was believed to be an alcoholic and, when present in/on Whitefriar's property or land would:
· Defecate and urinate in the gardens and communal areas;
· Beg for money, cigarettes and alcohol;
· Use foul and abusive language towards residents, staff, and other visitors to the property;
· Use threatening words and behaviour towards those people detailed above;
· Cause a general nuisance and annoyance.
Despite Whitefriars' attempts to assist the defendant in obtaining accommodation with support and charitable organisations, as well as securing medical attention, the defendant would not participate and would return to Whitefriars' property.
ISSUING THE ASBO
The defendant failed to attend the hearing, following the application for an ASBO, and the Magistrates ordered a warrant for the defendant's arrest as he had failed to appear following a summons.
The defendant was subsequently arrested and brought back before the Magistrates' Court in Coventry. The defendant was represented by the duty solicitor and, whilst denying the allegations, consented to the making of an interim order, but in amended terms.
The matter was brought before the Magistrates who, once being satisfied that it was just to make an order, granted the interim ASBO.
The defendant was duly served with a copy of the order, as well as a summons, requesting him to attend trial. The defendant failed to attend the trial and was not legally represented on the basis that he had not given any instructions to a solicitor.
Upon submissions to the Magistrates, the Court was satisfied that based on the evidence it was still just to make an interim ASBO to continue in the same terms.
Due to court listings, the hearing was adjourned and the interim order and summons were eventually served on the defendant personally.
The defendant proceeded to breach the interim order and on one occasion he was found guilty and sentenced to one week's imprisonment.
The defendant was then arrested for a further breach of the interim order and was remanded overnight so that he could attend the hearing the next day. He was represented by the same duty solicitor who, upon the defendant now admitting the incidents, consented to the order being made.
The parties consented for the order to run for a period of three years and the matter eventually came before a District Judge who, after requesting amendments be made to some of the prohibitions, was satisfied that an ASBO was necessary to protect relevant persons from further antisocial acts by the defendant.