Yobs. Boy wins Anti-Yob Challenge

Does dispersal mean order?

The teenager said the use of dispersal zones in Richmond, south-west London, breached his rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.

Unaccompanied under-16s found in zones after 9pm can be held and escorted home, whether badly behaved or not.

The police and Richmond Council argued that it reduced anti-social behaviour.

The High Court ruled that the law did not give the police a power of arrest, and officers could not force someone to come with them.

... they shouldn't be allowed to treat me like a criminal just because I'm under 16 Teenager known as "W"

Lord Justice Brooke said: "... All of us have the right to walk the streets without interference from police constables or CSOs unless they possess common law or statutory powers to stop us.

"If Parliament considered that such a power was needed, it should have said so, and identified the circumstances in which it intended the power to be exercised."

In a statement after the ruling the boy, known in the case as "W" and described as a "model student", said: "Of course I have no problem with being stopped by the police if I've done something wrong.

"But they shouldn't be allowed to treat me like a criminal just because I'm under 16."

Major implications

BBC Home Affairs correspondent Rory McLean said the ruling had major implications for the government's anti-social behaviour policy and may require legislation in order to deal with the issue.

During the case heard in May, Javan Herberg, appearing for the teenager, said the curfew zones violated the human rights of "wholly innocent" young people.

He told the court that more than 400 zones had been introduced under the 2003 Anti-Social Behaviour Act. While this case involved Richmond, its implications could be much wider, he said.

This is a victory for the presumption of innocence, and the right of everyone, no matter what their age, not to be subjected to coercive powers without good cause Alex Gask - Liberty

The Home Office, backed by lawyers for the police and council, argued the application for judicial review should be dismissed and said the zones did not breach human rights or common law.

They said the 15-year-old could not bring the claim because he had never been stopped by police inside a dispersal area.

The boy was backed by civil rights group Liberty.

Alex Gask, Liberty's legal Officer acting for "W", said: "This is a victory for the presumption of innocence, and the right of everyone, no matter what their age, not to be subjected to coercive powers without good cause".