Misuse of Community Protection Notices to Penalise Vulnerable Individuals

Background to Community Protection Notices

Community Protection Notices (CPNs) were first created under the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (the ‘Act’). They were designed to replace a range of existing administrative measures to deal with certain forms of anti-social behaviour and public nuisance (e.g., litter clearing notices, defacement removal notices, street litter control notices, etc.).¹ Failure to comply with the terms of a CPN is a criminal offence, punishable (in the case of an individual) with a fine not exceeding £2,500.

It is an essential requirement that any prohibitions imposed by a CPN must be sufficiently clear, certain in their operation, and easily understood. The guidance to the Act states that that “particular consideration” should be given to “the needs and circumstances of the most vulnerable” (p.27). In relation to CPNs in particular, the Statutory Guidance is clear: “Particular care should be taken to consider how the use of the power might impact on more vulnerable members of society” (p.51). Tellingly (one might think), the Statutory Guidance describes the CPN as being “particularly suited to environmental issues such as graffiti, rubbish, and noise nuisances” (p.52)

Case details

Our client is an exceptionally vulnerable person. Our client has experienced homelessness (either living on the street or in hostel accommodation) for 34 years and has suffered with addiction issues. Earlier this year, he was sleeping rough while he awaited a move to suitable hostel accommodation. While he was sleeping rough, our client was given a CPN by an officer from the Metropolitan Police.

On 13th January 2024, the CPN was imposed on our client. It originally contained 5 conditions in the following terms:

Condition 1: Prohibited from carrying, using, distributing or leaving drugs paraphernalia in a public place in the London Borough of Camden.

Condition 2: Not to block, sleep, sit outside or be found on any entrances and/or exits to doorways, any staircases, communal areas, bin sheds or any other parts of a residential or business premises. Not to be found inside any residential premises of which you are not the legal owner/occupier in the London Borough of Camden. Proof to be provided at the time of being stopped

Condition 3: Not to be in a group of four or more persons (which includes yourself) whilst engaging in incidents of anti-social behaviour anywhere in the London of Camden.

Condition 4: Not to position yourself to beg. This includes being static or mobile, approaching members of the public or vehicles and having articles used in the commission of begging (including but not limited to open containers/cups or signs) in the London Borough of Camden.

Condition 5: You are to positively engage with any services that are currently working with you in relation to your support needs.

The Metropolitan Police later confirmed that they were not seeking to defend all of the conditions in the CPN and provided our client with a varied CPN on 3rd May 2024. The amended CPN contained the following conditions:

Condition 1: Prohibited from carrying, using, distributing or leaving drugs paraphernalia in a public place in the London Borough of Camden.

Condition 2: Not to block, lie, sleep or sit outside, or remain on or in any entrances and/or exits to doorways, staircases, communal areas, bin sheds or any other parts of a residential or business premises in the London Borough of Camden. This does not include:
     a. Use of any areas of which you are the lawful owner or occupier;
     b. Being in an area where you are a customer, client or lawful visitor of the premises

Condition 3: Not to position yourself to beg. This includes being static or mobile, approaching members of the public or vehicles and displaying articles used in the commission of begging (including but not limited to open containers/cups or signs) in the London Borough of Camden. For the avoidance of doubt, possession of an open cup or container that contains food or a beverage, would not be considered to be an article used for the commission of begging.

In early March 2024, our client moved to suitable hostel accommodation in which he feels happy and settled. In spite of this, the Metropolitan Police maintained that he should be subject to a CPN.

Our client successfully appealed the decision of the Metropolitan Police to issue him with the CPN. Our client argued that the Metropolitan Police breached his human rights by issuing him with the notice and that some of the conditions were so unclear as to be incomprehensible.

While our client’s appeal was awaiting consideration by the Court, he was prosecuted for breaching the CPN on the basis that he was blocking a doorway and was found in possession of drugs and drug paraphernalia. All charges were dismissed on the basis that our client had no case to answer.

The hearing of our client’s appeal occurred on 10th May 2024 at Highbury Corner Magistrates’ Court. Our client requested that the officer who issued the CPN to our client, attend Court so that she could be cross-examined as her evidence was not accepted. The Metropolitan Police agreed that she would attend Court. However, the officer did not attend the hearing though she was duly informed by the Metropolitan Police that her attendance at Court was required. The Court noted that there was no explanation for why she did not attend Court. The Metropolitan Police applied to adjourn the hearing but this was refused by the Court.

The Judge considered the evidence put forward by the officer to assert that our client had breached his CPN following his move into hostel accommodation and for the most part, did not find this evidence to be compelling.

The Judge noted that our client had lodged his appeal against the CPN within the 21 day time limit and complied with the relevant court deadlines. The Judge noted that there were no reasons provided for why the relevant officer was not in attendance. The Judge observed that this was a waste of court time and public money.

As the adjournment was not granted by the Court, the Metropolitan Police said they would no longer defend the appeal. Our client’s appeal was therefore allowed by the Court.

Comment

Far from securing necessary support for a vulnerable individual, the CPN had the effect of criminalising our client for sleeping rough when he felt he had nowhere safer to sleep, for having addiction issues which he is working to address and for begging were he to resort to this in circumstances where he had no money for food.

It appears that by imposing the CPN on our client, the police sought to use the power of ad hoc criminalisation as a means of addressing significant social problems (the consequences of homelessness and substance addiction) which that power was never intended to address and which are fundamentally unsuited for it. CPNs are a power designed to address low-level nuisance and anti-social behaviour such as littering and graffiti. They are not designed to solve issues of poverty, homelessness and addiction/drug dependency issues.

We are also extremely concerned by the approach of the police to those with addiction issues. The condition in our client’s CPN forbidding him from carrying drug paraphernalia had two adverse public health consequences including (i) (paradoxically) increasing the risk of litter, by encouraging him to discard, rather than carry, any drug paraphernalia; (ii) increasing the risk to his health, by encouraging sharing of drug paraphernalia (including the sharing of needles), and by encouraging him to use less safe equipment; and (iii) increasing the public health risk to third parties, by encouraging the discarding of less safe equipment in public places. None of those consequences were appropriately considered by the Metropolitan Police Service in imposing on him the condition whereby he could not carry drug paraphernalia.

Luckily for our client, he secured suitable hostel accommodation in which he feels settled and secure. However, for those in the London Borough of Camden who are not so fortunate, it is appalling that they could be criminalised for having no option but to sleep rough.

Officers should be held to account for their decisions to issue CPNs and it was appalling that the officer did not attend Court to explain why they issued him with a CPN.

Our client was represented by Bríd Doherty and Sarah Flanagan of Hodge Jones and Allen Solicitors who confirm that they are “delighted with the outcome of our client’s CPN appeal hearing and that he can move forward with his life without fearing that he will be criminalised for experiencing poverty, homelessness and substance addiction/dependency issues”.

Our client was also represented by Tim James-Matthews, barrister at Matrix Chambers.

Press coverage of the case

The Camden New Journal has covered this case and did a comment piece following the client’s appeal hearing about CPNs. Here are links to the articles:

• Homeless man wins appeal against ban on holding cup
• A punitive measure tailored to hit the most vulnerable