Pender v DPP [2013] EWHC 2598 (Admin)

Revision as of 17:42, 26 March 2013 by Jonathan (talk | contribs) (Created page with "''An ASBO was imposed with a 'no begging' condition. An appeal, based on uncontradicted medical evidence (that the appellant suffered learning difficulties, schizophrenia and ...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

An ASBO was imposed with a 'no begging' condition. An appeal, based on uncontradicted medical evidence (that the appellant suffered learning difficulties, schizophrenia and severe nicotine addiction, and that begging was the manifestation of nicotine addiction), was unsuccessful. The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by way of case stated, because the judge had failed to set out the factual basis for her factual conclusion (which was contrary to the medical evidence) that the appellant had been capable of complying with the ASBO.

Citations

(2013) 177 CL&J 78, [2013] All ER (D) 173 (Jan)

External link

Not on Bailii at time of writing

Lexis Web