Latest articles
Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cohen J, 19 April 2021)Medical Treatment – 17-year-old had form of bone cancer and required surgery For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important...
Domestic Abuse Bill
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsAfter years of development the Domestic Abuse Bill returned to the House of Lords in the UK on the 8th March 2021 to complete its report stage, one of the final...
Coercive control and children’s welfare in Re H-N and Others
When families come to strife, arrangements must be made for the future care of any children. In some circumstances, this means an application to the courts. These ‘private law orders’ can...
Profession: Expert Witness
The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
How does a jointly held property pass on death?
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
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
Slug : r-w-v-commissioner-of-police-of-the-metropolis-and-another-interpreting-child-curfews-a-question-of-rights-2006-cflq-253
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : 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