The court gets tough on neighbours’ tormentor

This was a classic case of me knocking on the door and the photographer getting the person on camera. And this was also a nerve-wracking moment when I challenged the magistrates in court for the right to identify the person involved in the court case. The challenge was successful and we named her in the article as well as using this picture which clearly shows her face. However, as this was almost 15 years ago, I have decided protect her identity as hopefully she has been able to move on and get on with her life.

A 17-YEAR-OLD Scarborough girl who put her neighbours through two years of hell has finally faced the wrath of Scarborough magistrates.

The accused had wilfully ignored an Antisocial Behaviour Order (ASBO) which had been imposed on her just a few days earlier.

Her solicitor yesterday tried to argue in the youth court that she should be protected under the law by her identity being withheld from the public.

But the Evening News opposed his application as a deterrent to other youths who cause misery for their law abiding neighbours.

The solicitor’s protests were put to one side as magistrates backed our legal argument in the public interest.

In a move to protect her neighbours from more misery, they said she must obey a year-long community punishment order.

For deliberately ignoring a previous court ruling, she was also ordered to carry out 80 hours of unpaid work to repay her debt to society.

She could now be jailed if she causes any more problems for her neighbours or breaks any court judgements.

The troublesome teenager appeared before Scarborough Magistrates’ Youth Court yesterday and pleaded guilty to the offence but denied a second breach of the order which was granted last Wednesday.

Mrs Johnson, the chairman of the bench, said: “You will be made the subject of community punishment for 12 months. You will carry out 80 hours of unpaid work under the supervision of the Youth Offending Team.”

The original ASBO was granted after neighbours complained that the defendant’s home address had become the focal point for gangs of youths who caused havoc in the surrounding area.

It was alleged that, over a two-year period, their actions had a severe impact and some neighbours suffered illness and increased stress as a result, and the youths were believed to be responsible for many incidents of crime in the area.

Earlier this week the girl’s identity had to be kept secret under youth court rules, even though she had previously been named when she had appeared in an adult court with the father, of the same address.

The ASBO was granted last week under section 1 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 by Scarborough Magistrates’ Court for a period of four years and meant:

• gatherings of more than two people at her home address were prohibited;
• a curfew is placed on visitors at that address between 6pm and 8am;
• there was a list of individuals that she could not associate with.

It was alleged that she had associated with a named person in Sainsbury’s Park on Saturday and she was held in custody until she could appear before Scarborough Magistrates’ Court on Monday.

Marcus Topham, her solicitor, attempted to argue that the order should be made because there was no anti-social behaviour involved in the breach.

Mr Topham claimed this was an early breach but there was no anti-social behaviour associated with it and there was no suggestion of criminal activity or drinking alcohol.

“There was a quite positive report and we should consider a community penalty for her,” he said. “She is hoping to move away and put the events of the past two years behind her.”

But after lengthy deliberations the chairman of the bench said there would be no restrictions on press reporting.

The court heard that the teenager and her friends were approached by officers from Scarborough Police in Sainsbury’s park and they started swapping their jackets.

Charlotte Walker, prosecuting, said: “When she was arrested she said ‘Am I going to be in and out of prison for the next four years because I can’t meet my friends?’.”

When she was allowed to speak in court. She now promised: “I just want to start afresh somewhere else. I don’t want to keep coming back to court.”

Mrs Johnson said the fact that she had pleaded guilty and had spent some time in custody had been taken into account in reaching the verdict.

She added that she had deliberately associated with a named person and was subject to a four month Detention and Treatment Order.

From the Scarborough Evening News on Wednesday, October 31, 2007.