BellaOnline Forums Travel and Culture Russian Culture Human rights in London

I contacted a friend by e-mail & asked whether all is well for him in London. It is, though he lives near & regularly uses one of the bombed London underground stations. Anyway, he advised me of the doings of a lawyer (see article below).
Keep in mind that in England, a person is innocent until proven guilty and certain high strata live in a closed society. Carl:

From the Times of London, see below:

Boy, 15, in human rights challenge to curfew zones
By Frances Gibb, Legal Editor

THE rights of children are being fundamentally breached by "curfew zones" introduced to tackle antisocial behaviour, the High Court was told yesterday.
Any unaccompanied child under 16 who ventures into such an area after 9pm is liable to be arrested and escorted home, whether or not they are suspected of bad behaviour, the court heard.



A 15-year-old boy backed by Liberty, the human rights group, is bringing a test legal challenge with implications for some 400 zones in England and Wales.

The judges heard that the boy, W, was a churchgoing "model student" interested in sport and music who had never been in trouble with the police and wanted the right to go to the cinema or football matches without the fear of losing his freedom and being detained by the police.

Javan Herberg, for the boy, who cannot be named for legal reasons, said the curfew zones violated the human rights of "wholly innocent" young people and was an abuse of the common law. Although the case specifically concerned two child "dispersal areas" created by the Metropolitan Police in Richmond-upon-Thames, the case inevitably had wider implications, Mr Herberg said.

He told Lord Justice Brooke, sitting with Mr Justice Mitting, that at the last count more than 400 dispersal areas had been designated under the Antisocial Behaviour Act 2003. Children could be detained, held and returned to their home "even when there is no suggestion or apprehension they will commit antisocial behaviour or anything else wrong".

The Home Secretary and police claimed that "reasonable force" could be used to remove under-16s in dispersal areas, even though they had been given no express statutory power.Mr Herberg said: "It is this power which fundamentally breaches the European Convention on Human Rights and common law. A large number of people have had their freedom of movement and association curtailed or fettered by the designation of dispersal areas and by the curfews operated in those areas."

But there was no statutory right to use force or to arrest under-16s under dispersal orders.

Lord Justice Brooke summed up the question before the court, saying: "There is apparently a power to remove an under-16-year-old as if he were a sack of carrots, but what are his rights as a child?" Liberty is seeking a ruling that "anti-yob" legislation cannot be used to penalise innocent young people.

W, who was not in court, said in a statement: "Of course I have no problem with being stopped by the police if I've done something wrong. But they shouldn't be allowed to treat me like a criminal just because I'm under 16."

He is seeking a ruling that the curfew regime violates his right to liberty under Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as Article 8 (respect for private life), Article 11 (right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association with others), and Article 14 (right not to be discriminated against because of his child status).

The curfew powers allow police to take children home if they are found inside a dispersal area between 9pm and 6am. Areas are designated if they have a significant history of intimidation, harassment and antisocial behaviour.

James Welch, Liberty's legal director, said: "These powers fail to distinguish between the innocent and the guilty. No one objects to reasonable sanctions for bad behaviour. He should attack that behaviour and not all children."

Alex Gask, Liberty's legal officer, who is acting for W, added: "My client is a model student who has never been in trouble with the police. He rightly objects to laws that would remove his right to walk down the street at 9pm."

Timothy Otty, for the Home Office, will argue that the 15-year-old had no standing to bring the claim as he had not been stopped by police and deprived of his liberty inside a dispersal area. There had been no interference with his private rights but if there were in future, it would be on the basis that the police action was "necessary and proportionate" with the legitimate aim of controlling anti-social behaviour.

The case, at the High Court in London, continues

Guys: Attorney Jared Herberg & the boy won the case. Carl:



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4699095.stm





BBC NEWS



Boy, 15, wins curfew legal battle

A 15-year-old boy has won a landmark High Court challenge to the legality of

child curfew zones used to tackle anti-social behaviour.

The teenager said the use of dispersal zones in Richmond, south-west London,

breached his rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.

Unaccompanied under-16s found in zones after 9pm can be held and escorted home,

whether badly behaved or not.

The Home Office said it would be appealing against the ruling.

The police and Richmond Council had argued that curfew zones reduced anti-social

behaviour.

The High Court ruled that the law did not give the police a power of arrest, and

officers could not force someone to come with them.

... They shouldn't be allowed to treat me like a criminal just because I'm

under 16

Teenager known as "W"





Lord Justice Brooke said: "... All of us have the right to walk the streets

without interference from police constables or CSOs unless they possess common

law or statutory powers to stop us.

"If Parliament considered that such a power was needed, it should have said so,

and identified the circumstances in which it intended the power to be

exercised."

In a statement after the ruling the boy, known in the case as "W" and described

as a "model student", said: "Of course I have no problem with being stopped by

the police if I've done something wrong.

"But they shouldn't be allowed to treat me like a criminal just because I'm

under 16.

"I am very happy with the outcome it is a good victory. I'm glad that the police

can't just use force against us anymore.

"I am happy that I won't get into trouble with the police just for being young."



These powers provide the police with a powerful tool to tackle

intimidation and anti-social behaviour by groups of people

Home Office spokeswoman





BBC Home Affairs correspondent Rory McLean said the test case ruling had major

implications for the government's anti-social behaviour policy and may require

legislation in order to deal with the issue.

A Home Office spokeswoman said dispersal zones already in place and future

applications were unaffected by the judgment.

"These powers provide the police with a powerful tool to tackle intimidation and

anti-social behaviour by groups of people," she said.

"Whilst not limited to young people, 'teenagers hanging around' is a big cause

of concern to the public as cited in the British Crime Survey."





During the case heard in May, Javan Herberg, appearing for the teenager, said

the curfew zones violated the human rights of "wholly innocent" young people.

He told the court that more than 400 zones had been introduced under the 2003

Anti-Social Behaviour Act. While this case involved Richmond, its implications

could be much wider, he said.

The Home Office, backed by lawyers for the police and council, argued the

application for judicial review should be dismissed and said the zones did not

breach human rights or common law.

They said the 15-year-old could not bring the claim because he had never been

stopped by police inside a dispersal area.

The boy was backed by civil rights group Liberty.

Alex Gask, Liberty's legal Officer acting for "W", said: "This is a victory for

the presumption of innocence, and the right of everyone, no matter what their

age, not to be subjected to coercive powers without good cause".

Story from BBC NEWS:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/england/london/4699095.stm



Published: 2005/07/20 10:59:24 GMT