Judge Shaw sentenced Kim to 40 hours community work, £60 victim surcharge and £713 court costs, and Amanda recieved the same surcharge and costs, but was given a curfew (8am to 10pm) and ordered to wear a tag.
In authorising this power the inspector (or above) must have regard to Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights that provide for the right for lawful freedom of expression and freedom of assembly.
"An authorisation under s34 of the Act must -
(a) be in writing
(b) be signed by the officer giving it, and
(c) specify the grounds on which it is given.
Where an authorisation is in force under Sec 34, a constable in uniform may direct a person who is in a public place in the locality specified in the authorisation - according to Sec 35:
(a) to leave the locality (or part of the locality), and
(b) not to return to the locality (or part of the locality) for the period specified in the direction.
Two conditions need to be met for a direction to be given:
The officer must have reasonable grounds to suspect that the behaviour of the person in the locality has contributed or is likely to contribute to -
(a) members of the public in the locality being harassed, alarmed or distressed, or
(b) the occurrence in the locality of crime or disorder.
The officer considers that giving a direction to the person is necessary for the purpose of removing or reducing the likelihood of anti-social behaviour, crime or disorder."
Neither Amanda or Kim had harassed, alarmed or distressed members of the public in the locality, nor had they committed any crimes or behaved disorderly. Therefore, there were no reasonable grounds to suspect that they had 'contributed' to the two conditions, and the two conditions had not been met. I'd be of the view that their arrests were quite unlawful.
In my view, the only way that Amanda and Kim are guilty of this offence is, if giving food to the homeless, or anyone for that matter is 'anti-social behaviour, then they are guilty.
If giving food to others is not 'anti-social behaviour', as most sensible and compassionate people would surely agree, then they should both have been acquitted.