Is the LBL's drinking control zone lawful?

[bensonby]

After having just been digging around some primary legislation I have just written and sent the following to the council:

Dear Sir/Madam,



It is my understanding that a Drinking Control Zone, under the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, has been in place across the borough for a while now. Whilst reading the primary legislation I note that Section 13(2)(A) of that Act allows Local Authorities to designate such areas where "nuisance or annoyance to members of the public or a section of the public....has been associated with the consumption of alcohol in that place.".



Would you be able to tell me how many complaints of crime, nuisance or anti-social behaviour relating to, or subsequently ascribed to, the consumption of alcohol in the following streets within the year preceding the introduction of the drinking control zone:



Clarens Street SE6

Fambridge Close SE26

Lynch Close SE3

Henryson Road SE4

Claybank Grove SE13

Parbury Road SE23

Surrey Mount SE23

Panmure Road SE26

Sissinghurst Close BR1

Cumberland Place SE12





My contention is that if no complaints, or issues have been identified, have been received in a particular street or location then it cannot be said that nuisance or annoyance to members of the public or a section of the public....has been associated with the consumption of alcohol in that place. And, as such, it is questionable whether the council have the legal power to designate a Drinking Control Zone, under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 2001 and, indeed, any attempt to designate one would be unlawful.



Please could you clarify matters for me?



Many thanks,

[bigbadwolf]

After reading various proposals aimed at dealing with disruptive drunks who spend most of their time pissing their benefits up the wall in public on a daily basis, I rattled off the following missive.

To whom it may concern,

Like most law abiding citizens, I can't help but wonder why our police forces aren't allowed to use their own professional discretion when it comes to deciding, and subsequently acting upon, who is peacefully enjoying a can of beer or bottle of wine with friends in public, and who is knowingly acting in an intimidating fashion by drinking several cans of strong lager/cider in public. Can you please tell me how we've got ourselves into the situation where there will be an indignant outcry on behalf of those who drunkenly harrass passing members of the public, of all ages, when approached by concerned police officers who wish to confiscate alcohol from those who are conspicuously intoxicated and by extension lower the tone and reputation of the area in which they get drunk on a daily basis i.e - Sydenham road and outside Lewisham hospital.

[bensonby]

I can't help but wonder why our police force aren't allowed to use their own discression when it comes to deciding, and subsequently acting upon, who is enjoying a can of beer or bottle of wine with friends in public, and who's knowingly acting in an intimidating fashion by drinking several cans of strong lager/cider in public.

The police do have that discretion - both in terms of excercising drinking control zone powers and in terms of taking action against people breaking the various associated laws around drunkenness.

And it's a service, not a force

[bigbadwolf]

Don't get me wrong, bensonby, contrary to what my response suggests, I'm not having a dig at the police. I'm just annoyed that we've got ourselves into the position where we're discussing, and in your case addressing the local authority, subjects that used to be dealt with quite effectively. In that someone who was drunk to the extent that they were causing concern would have the cause of that concern confiscated and recieve a loud bollocking from the intervening police officer.

[bensonby]

The problem is funnily enough, like many things, health and safety and accountability.


In days of yore if a police officer across a drunkard he would simply arrest him, stick him in the cells and kick him out in the morning and/or put him up in front of the beak for a fine.

Now police still have that power. However, they are not allowed to just dump prisoners in cells when paralytic. They get dumped on A&Es and, if they are under arrest, they have to have two PCs sitting with them. the reason for this was several times drunks ended up dying after choking on vomit etc. Also, even if they are not utterly paralytic then if they are one of your usual street drinkers they will have other anncilliary issues - such as mental health problems etc: if they are deemed a "high risk prisoner" (to themselves) then they will be placed under "constant supervision" - which basically equates to having a PC sitting with them at the door of their cell babysitting them until they are released.

It all stems from previous deaths in custody and the ever present fear of someone dying in a cell - with new Corporate Manslaughter legislation it's even more prevalent as, basically, if someone dies in the cell then the custody sergeant is likely to end up in prison(!)

On top of this even a basic arrest for being drunk in the street will probably generate an hour's paperwork at a conservative guess - on top of the custody procedure (booking in, fingerprints and so on)

So there you have it: arrest a drunk and tie up an officer, or two, for a shift (when there aren't really enough to cope with call volume as it is) or let them get on with it.

Rock? Hardplace?

[bigbadwolf]

Yes, bensonby, I'm well aware that Britain's police forces have moved on from the days of the Bow Street Runners, and, as a result, are obliged to provide more than a cell, fine and word of warning for their detainees, not to mention a staircase to throw them down. And don't get me wrong - I accept that there are more causes of alcoholism than mere idleness. It's just that, even with all the - admittedly necessary - precautionary measures in place, I don't accept that the majority of street drinkers - because that's who we're talking about - warrant all these measures. In many cases they're work-shy layabouts and the repeated confiscation of their alcohol will work towards providing a long-term solution. Though I concede that they're more than likely to move-on to a more tolerent/indifferent area, and that cases that suggest mental health issues should be subject to compassionate examination with a view to offering ongoing assistance.

[marymck]

I think it's a sad state of affairs when public benches are removed and benches in bus shelters changed for those high sloping red things to discourage people from sleeping one off. Last year I had an injured foot which made it impossible for me to perch on one of those bus shelter seats, due to the pressure it put on my foot. This brought it home to me how impossible it must be for the aged or disabled to use them and how there is just nowhere now for anyone to have a rest when doing their shopping or waiting for a bus.

And having to close public toilets because of drug problems must also make things difficult for the elderly and pregnant women and others who need to use them for the purpose they were intended.

We have Take Back the Night. Maybe we need Take Back the Streets?

[Thomas]

Well done Bensonby for challenging the Council on this, though some time ago I posted here to say that I favoured some form of restriction on street drinkers, and I haven’t seen anything since to make me change my mind.

The 2001 Act (“primary legislation”) Bensonby referred to above enabled more detailed regulations (“secondary legislation”) to be introduced – the most recent were introduced in 2007 (replacing earlier regulations) and set out how a local authority can impose such controls. These can be found at:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007 ... tents/made

A good starting point is this Parliamentary Briefing Paper which I think summarises what various parties have said in a neutral impartial way – this can be found at:
http://www.parliament.uk/briefingpapers ... -04606.pdf

What is clear from reading the legislation (primary and secondary), the Parliamentary paper and some of its footnotes (I haven’t read all of them!) is that there isn’t a clear hurdle or threshold to pass as to whether a nuisance or annoyance has been committed: what is clear though is that there has to be some evidence that there is a problem and that it won’t go away on its own. This should have been gathered when the council consulted on this – I think that there might have been something on this forum when this was done asking for views that gives them the evidence to justify their decision. So, maybe the council will come back to say that x number of people said that they thought it was a nuisance.

What isn’t clear to me is just how someone could challenge a designation once it’s made, not unless they went to judicial review! And once an order is made, how is it ever un-made?