The court had made an interim injunction to prevent gang-related violence, or GANGBO, pursuant to Policing and Crime Act 2009 section 34, against a member of a gang who, on appeal, submitted that restrictions should be applied in the same manner as anti-social behaviour orders. That is, they be directed to the restraint of activities for which the person was themselves responsible without reference to the behaviour of others.

The Court of Appeal rejected this approach, holding that the courts were not confined to restraining particular conduct relating to the individual. The order was to prevent gang related violence and it the court was entitled to consider the conduct attributed to the gang as a whole and to impose such orders as it considered appropriate in the case of each gang member. 

It did express some caution, however, stating that whilst it may be a matter of chance as to which of the gang’s activities is conduct by which member, the court should consider whether any particular individual might be more appropriately restrained to a lesser extent than others and whether such an interim order should be varied as time passes and a trial has not yet taken place. Unsurprisingly, the Court of Appeal also held that a judge imposing such an order must consider the proportionality of the individual order sought, not merely follow a template, and have regard to the length of the time that the order may in place pending a final hearing. 

This matter concerned, as stated above, an interim injunction. Whilst noting that both parties had accepted that the threshold issue for the court was whether there was “a serious question be tried” following the well known American Cyanamid Company v Ethikon Ltd [1975] AC 396, the Court expressed some reservation as to whether this really was the correct approach for these quasi-criminal matters. Expect more on this.