Information - CLOSURE OF PREMISES (ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR, CRIME AND POLICING ACT 2014)

[Oxygen Thief]

Well, I was reading this...

http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/ne...potentially_dangerous__39__derelict_building/

Here's some snippets...

VANDALS have been barred from a "potentially dangerous" derelict building in Poole after magistrates issued a three-month closure order.

Officers at Poole council applied for the order after a number of break-ins at St John's House in Serpentine Road.

The empty building, which is close to the railway station, had become a "magnet" for anti-social behaviour, councillors say.

A three-month premises closure order was granted at Bournemouth Magistrates' Court on Wednesday, November 16.

This bit was concerning though...

The order prohibits unauthorised entry into a property.

Anyone who ignores the direction commits a criminal offence.

Poole council applied for the order after people living and working nearby told police of their concerns for young people seen getting into the building.

Looking into this legislation, mainly using this page... http://asbhelp.co.uk/closure-of-premises/ shows that the legistlation is shallow enough to be used against exploring...

A police officer of at least the rank of inspector, or the local authority, may issue a closure notice if satisfied on reasonable grounds that the use of the particular premises has resulted or is likely soon to result in nuisance to members of the public, or that there has been or is likely soon to be disorder near those premises associated with the use of those premises, and that the notice is necessary to prevent the nuisance or disorder from continuing, recurring or occurring.

So, in short, a police inspector can make the decision to close a building and at that point it becomes a criminal offence to enter. That ruling would last for 48 hours but can be extended by a court to 3 months.

Just wondering when we'll see this used against us?

 

[Boomstick84]

Interesting.

Seems kind of pointless in principle though. Those going in there to genuinely vandalise the place are already committing a criminal offence so aren't likely to pay much heed to a fancy new criminal closure order anyway.

Does raise a worrying question of how it could potentially be used against explorers down the line though.

Not familiar with the state of the place in question but it does sound pretty trashed. Maybe this is more likely to be used on the really fetid shells that are starting to attract more than just the curious local kids and explorer types?

 

[Ojay]

Needs applying to Camelot

 

[Camera Shy]

Needs applying to Camelot

It's Naplam that needs appying to Camelot.
Interesting points though OT, we'll have to see how it plays out in the future.

 

[drhowser]

Few more bits about it below, but that is really fucking vague! It doesn't even specify if notices have to be posted at the site or what actually constitutes a disturbance.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2014/12/part/4/chapter/3/crossheading/closure-orders/enacted

http://www.popall.co.uk/expertise/enforcement/police-closures-power-to-close-licensing-premises.aspx

 

[Coxieboy]

So would the police have to prove anything or just being there constitutes a criminal offence? Like you said, its very vague......

 

[Bugsuperstar]

Interesting cheers OT. I bet it won't be long before we hear of this kind of thing happening.

 

[elhomer12]

Needs applying to Camelot

I was just thinking that

 

[dweeb]

I suppose it could happen if the police got fed up of a particularly grumpy building owner constantly contacting them about people entering his building. The police may see it as a way to get a persistent moaner (or someone with some leverage) off their backs...

 

[Bigjobs]

As it's site specific, I can't see it being enforceable without signage. Much like a byelaw

 

[Speed]

Bloody hope so. Sounds like a dream come true

 

[Bigjobs]

Previous page on Dr howsers legislation link
States what must be written on the closure notice. Basically what will be put on the sign they stick to the door.

 

[Bigjobs]

The constable or local authority representative must if possible—

(a)fix a copy of the notice to at least one prominent place on the premises,

(b)fix a copy of the notice to each normal means of access to the premises,

(c)fix a copy of the notice to any outbuildings that appear to the constable or representative to be used with or as part of the premises,

(d)give a copy of the notice to at least one person who appears to the constable or representative to have control of or responsibility for the premises, and

(6)) that the notice was going to be issued.

(3)If the constable or local authority representative reasonably believes, at the time of serving the notice, that there are persons occupying another part of the building or other structure in which the premises are situated whose access to that part will be impeded if a closure order is made under section 80, the constable or representative must also if possible serve the notice on those persons.

 

[xexxa]

Well, I was reading this...

http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/ne...potentially_dangerous__39__derelict_building/

Here's some snippets...




This bit was concerning though...



Looking into this legislation, mainly using this page... http://asbhelp.co.uk/closure-of-premises/ shows that the legistlation is shallow enough to be used against exploring...



So, in short, a police inspector can make the decision to close a building and at that point it becomes a criminal offence to enter. That ruling would last for 48 hours but can be extended by a court to 3 months.

Just wondering when we'll see this used against us?

Funny to see this one actually what with it being in my hometown. I wanted to explore it so I kept shtum. I was aware of this article but it didn't twig to me that it was unusual. I just though that it was the way it was. Anyway. Cats out the bag, now. As I'm studying law anyway I'm going to have a look in to this. I can't imagine this is a strict liability offence, but I've certainly never heard of it being applied to urbex before... I believe they are usually applied to crack dens and the like. The building in question is owned by poole council, and I wonder if perhaps that made it easier for them to get an injunction

 

[Chloe16]

Funnily enough i was in there an hour ago