TWO High Court judges dealt a blow to the Government’s drive against yobbish behaviour yesterday when they ruled against “vague” antisocial behaviour orders (ASBOs).

They said that it was inappropriate for the courts to issue orders that lacked clarity and that simply banned individuals from acting in an antisocial manner.

Lord Justice Richards and Mr Justice David Clarke said that orders must be closely linked to the behaviour that they were trying to prohibit. “In our judgment, such a wide provision as ‘not to act in an antisocial manner’, without further definition or limitation, should never again be included in an ASBO,” they said in a joint ruling.

The judges added that official guidance on ASBOs gave numerous examples of proper forms for orders and that those should be adopted.

They set out guidelines in a judgment in the case of a teenager referred to as T, who cannot be named for legal reasons.

An ASBO prohibited T from acting, or encouraging others to act, “in an antisocial manner in the city of Manchester” for a period of two years.

The judges said that the case provided a particularly good example of the need to make orders more specific.

The Crown Prosecution Service had appealed against a decision of District Judge Alan Berg at Manchester City Youth Court in September 2005, dismissing a charge that T, then aged 15, had breached an ASBO. He had been caught by CCTV apparently trying to take a motor scooter from a garden.

T admitted interfering with a motor vehicle and was given a 12-month supervision order plus a month’s curfew with an electronic tag from 9pm to 7am.

A charge of breaching the ASBO was dismissed by Judge Berg, who ruled that the first paragraph of the ASBO, which he himself had ordered two years earlier, was in such wide terms that it was “too vague, lacked clarity and was therefore unenforceable and void”.

Lord Justice Richards said that other paragraphs of the order were clearly tailored to fit T’s individual case, but that the first paragraph remained “a problem”.

It was argued on the teenager’s behalf that its terms were not sufficient to enable him to know what he could or could not do. The Crown Prosecution Service said that T’s conduct was easily understood to be a breach of the ASBO because it amounted to acting in an antisocial manner as defined in law.

The High Court judges said the district judge had not been entitled to strike down the first paragraph of the ASBO on the ground that it was invalid.

Disagreeing with an earlier High Court ruling, the judges said: “We do not accept that because an order is ‘plainly too wide’ it is also ‘plainly invalid’.”

But they backed Judge Berg’s “substantive concerns” about the terms of the ASBO imposed on T being too wide and non-specific and refused to quash his decision.

ASBOs are a key to the Government’s fight against yobbish behaviour; 7,356 have been issued since April 1999.

They have been used to tackle the sort of behaviour that was previously perceived as hard to police — such as persistent harassment, abusive behaviour or vandalism.

Breaking an order could result in a five-year jail term for an offence that would not normally be considered criminal.

While the terms of ASBOs imposed have often been vague, highly specific orders have also been made.

In May 2004 a 13-year-old was banned from using the word “grass” anywhere in England or Wales. In February 2003 a 16-year-old boy was banned from showing his tattoos, wearing a single golf glove, or wearing a balaclava in public anywhere in the country. He was also forbidden from congregating in public places in a group of more than three people.

The music companies Sony and BMG have been handed ASBOs for fly-posting, and a Norfolk farmer was ordered to keep his geese and swine under control after neighbours complained of escaped animals causing damage.

Manchester is the ASBO capital of England and Wales, with 1,045 issued, followed by 749 in London and 554 in West Midlands. Only 32 have been issued in Wiltshire.

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• BGC 'set aside £40m to lure Tullett brokers'
• Legal aid review to ensure value
• Fears as 21 magistrates' courts face closure