Spotlight
Court of Protection Practice 2024
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articlesrss feeds
A seismic change in ethos and practice
Caroline Bowden, a member of the Private Family Law Early Resolution Working Group which first examined what changes were needed, looks at the effect of the revised rules on everyone working in family...
Debunking the myth about sensitivity in drug and alcohol testing
*** SPONSORED CONTENT***With all the news about deep fakes, authentication and transparency in the news at the moment, Cansford Laboratories Reporting Scientist Jayne Hazon has examined a recent...
New Family Presiding Judges Appointed
The Lady Chief Justice, with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor, has announced the appointment of two Family Presiding Judges.Mr Justice MacDonald has been appointed for a period of four years,...
Victims given greater access to justice through legal aid reform
Innocent people who have suffered miscarriages of justice, personal harm or injury are among those who will benefit from upcoming changes to legal aid means testing coming into effect this...
Obligations and responsibilities – the mosquito in the bedroom
Stephen Wildblood KC, 3PB BarristersLuke Nelson, 3PB BarristersWhatever happened to ‘obligations and responsibilities’ in s 25(2) MCA 1973?  Why is it that all of the other words in...
View all articles
Authors

R (W) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and Another - Interpreting child curfews: a question of rights? [2006] CFLQ 253

Sep 29, 2018, 17:53 PM
Title : R (W) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and Another - Interpreting child curfews: a question of rights? [2006] CFLQ 253
Slug : r-w-v-commissioner-of-police-of-the-metropolis-and-another-interpreting-child-curfews-a-question-of-rights-2006-cflq-253
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Check Copyright Text : No
Date : Sep 20, 2011, 05:10 AM
Article ID : 95833

The High Court in R (W) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and Another held that the powers under section 30(6) of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, which allow for a child curfew to be imposed in certain areas, did not permit the police to use reasonable force to compel a child to return to his home if the child breached the curfew. This commentary analyses the reasoning in the case, and argues that although the decision itself is to be welcomed, the reasoning should have placed greater emphasis on the entitlement of the child to the protection of his rights as a person under the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950. The implications of the decision on other child curfew powers, specifically those under section 14 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, will also be considered.

Categories :
  • Articles
  • CFLQ
Tags :
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from