Last week our Edward Webb represented a local authority in its application for a closure order pursuant to section 80 of the Anti-social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014 (“the 2014 Act”). The closure order in question did not relate to the usual incidents of nuisance behaviour such as loud music, fighting or littering. Rather in this case, the local authority had been informed by a neighbour that the tenant had been arrested on suspicion of being in possession of explosives, ammunition and drugs.
The tenant was subject to police bail and not permitted to attend the premises, as such, the local authority had time to investigate the matter whilst he was not in occupation of the property. The police confirmed (albeit in broad terms) that explosives, ammunition and drugs were found in the property but did not disclose the precise details of the type or amount of the same.
The local authority served a closure notice and the matter was listed for a hearing at the local magistrate’s court.
Pursuant to section 80 of the 2014 Act, the court may make a closure order if it is satisfied (on the balance of probabilities), a person has engaged, or (if the order is not made) is likely to engage, in disorderly, offensive or criminal behaviour on the premises, OR that the use of the premises has resulted, or (if the order is not made) is likely to result, in serious nuisance to members of the public, OR that there has been, or (if the order is not made) is likely to be, disorder near those premises associated with the use of those premises and that the order is necessary to prevent the behaviour, nuisance or disorder from continuing, recurring or occurring.
The Defendant submitted he had lived at the premises for over a decade and never had any previous issues of anti-social behaviour and there would be no issues going forward.
The magistrates were satisfied the first part of the test was satisfied i.e. that the D had or was likely to engage in criminal activity but when considering whether the order was necessary, this caused them more concern given the isolated nature of the offence. However the magistrates were persuaded it was necessary to prevent the behaviour from occurring or reoccurring, the risk to neighbours had the explosives detonated would potentially have been catastrophic. A closure order was granted for the maximum period of 3 months.
