“Where the power under section 30(6) is exercised, any local authority whose area includes the whole or part of the relevant locality must be notified of the fact.”
“(1) Where a constable has reasonable cause to believe that a child would otherwise be likely to suffer significant harm, he may – (a) remove the child to suitable accommodation and keep him there; or (b) take such steps as are reasonable to ensure that the child’s removal from any hospital, or other place, in which he is then being accommodated is prevented. (2) For the purposes of this Act, a child with respect to whom a constable has exercised his powers under this section is referred to as having been taken into police protection. (3) As soon as is reasonably practicable after taking a child into police protection, the constable concerned shall – (a) inform the local authority within whose area the child was found of the steps that have been, and are proposed to be, taken with respect to the child under this section and the reasons for taking them; (b) give details to the authority within whose areas the child is ordinarily resident (‘the appropriate authority’) of the place at which the child is being accommodated; (c) inform the child (if he appears capable of understanding) – (i) of the steps that have been taken with respect to him under this section and of the reasons for taking them; and (ii) of the further steps that may be taken with respect to him under this section; (d) take such steps as are reasonably practicable to discover the wishes and feelings of the child; (e) secure that the case is inquired into by an officer designated for the purposes of this section by the chief officer of the police area concerned; and (f) where the child was taken into police protection by being removed to accommodation which is not provided – (i) by or on behalf of a local authority; or (ii) as a refuge, in compliance with the requirements of section 51, secure that he is moved to accommodation which is so provided.” (a) remove the child to suitable accommodation and keep him there; or (b) take such steps as are reasonable to ensure that the child’s removal from any hospital, or other place, in which he is then being accommodated is prevented. (a) inform the local authority within whose area the child was found of the steps that have been, and are proposed to be, taken with respect to the child under this section and the reasons for taking them; (b) give details to the authority within whose areas the child is ordinarily resident (‘the appropriate authority’) of the place at which the child is being accommodated; (c) inform the child (if he appears capable of understanding) – (i) of the steps that have been taken with respect to him under this section and of the reasons for taking them; and (ii) of the further steps that may be taken with respect to him under this section; (d) take such steps as are reasonably practicable to discover the wishes and feelings of the child; (e) secure that the case is inquired into by an officer designated for the purposes of this section by the chief officer of the police area concerned; and (f) where the child was taken into police protection by being removed to accommodation which is not provided – (i) by or on behalf of a local authority; or (ii) as a refuge, in compliance with the requirements of section 51, secure that he is moved to accommodation which is so provided.” secure that he is moved to accommodation which is so provided.”
“Work was also taking place to prevent under 16s from causing problems, and the police would now be challenging any under 16s out at night (between 9pm and 2am) and taking them home to their parents. Parents would be written to and confronted, and if the situation continued, would be shown video footage of their children’s bad behaviour. This was a priority for the whole Borough.”
“In addition to the dispersal power, the authorisation gives the power to police to remove under 16 year olds to their home during specified hours. I explained this to the meeting. I considered that under 16s out late at night were vulnerable and it would be the duty of patrolling officers to consider whether there was a duty of care and the need to return the youngsters home. I note that the report has recorded ... that the power could be exercised between 9pm and 2am whereas in fact the legislation provides between 9pm and 6am. I am not sure whether this is a simple error or whether some confusion has crept in as a result of another concept. Certainly, I know from experience that a lot of the problems on patrol arise between 9pm and 2am and I might have commented upon this. There are particular problems at this time between Thursdays and Saturdays, when groups congregate and there is under age drinking and graffiti. I understood the legislation. The report indicates that police will now be challenging any under 16s etc. This comment should be read in the context of the previous paragraph of the report where I describe the legislation as “allowing the police” (not “requiring the police”) to act. I envisaged that when the authorisation came into effect, it would be likely that under 16s out between 9pm and 6am would be approached by uniformed officers and communicated with. I would expect an explanation to be given about the designated area. I would expect under 16s to be taken home only if the circumstances justified it because of their vulnerability or because they were causing trouble. One factor would be that the local officers would tend to know local youngsters and it might be a matter of concern only if they were repeatedly out late. I did not say that all under 16s would be taken home. In taking a young person home, there are resource implications in that the officer involved is diverted from other activities. We would have to rely on already stretched limited resources.”
“If you are under 16 you are not allowed to be here between the hours of 9pm and 6am unless you are under the effective control of a parent or responsible person over the age of 18. You may be removed to your home or place of safety if more appropriate.”
“’Necessary implication’ connotes an implication which is compellingly clear. Such an implication may be found in the language used, the nature of the offence, the mischief sought to be prevented and any other circumstances which may assist in determining what intention is properly to be attributed to Parliament when creating the offence.”
“It is accepted that the statute does not contain any express words that abrogate the taxpayer’s common law right to rely upon legal professional privilege. The question therefore becomes whether there is a necessary implication to that effect. A necessary implication is not the same as a reasonable implication as was pointed out by Lord Hutton in B (A Minor) v Director of Public Prosecutions[2002] 2 AC 428 , 481. A necessary implication is one which necessarily follows from the express provisions of the statute construed in their context. It distinguishes between what it would have been sensible or reasonable for Parliament to have included or what Parliament would, if it had thought about it, probably have included and what it is clear that the express language of the statute shows that the statute must have included. A necessary implication is a matter of express language and logic not interpretation.”
“removal and accommodation of children by police in cases of emergency”