At the time that the alleged offence was committed, a Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) made under s 59 of the Anti-social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014 was in force. This prohibited any person from consuming alcohol, or from having an open container for alcohol, in the restricted area. On 20 December 2018, the respondent was present in the area. He was holding an open can which bore the label ‘Foster’s Lager’, and was seen to drink from it by two police constables. One of the constables reasonably believed that the container had alcohol in it due to the label, and because the respondent refused to surrender it or to provide an explanation as to its contents. He therefore warned the respondent that he reasonably believed him to be consuming alcohol in contravention of the PSPO and asked him again to surrender the can. When the respondent refused once again, he was warned that he would be issued with a fixed penalty notice (FPN) if he continued to refuse to surrender the container since such behaviour amounted to an offence. The respondent’s continued refusal to surrender the can therefore led to him being issued with a FPN pursuant to s 68 of the 2014 Act. At this juncture, he claimed that the can contained an orange coloured non-alcoholic liquid and proceeded to pour it out. Although the contents of the can were never analysed, it was accepted by the police constable that at this stage he had no longer reasonably believed that it contained alcohol. Since the respondent did not pay the sum required by the FPN, he was charged with an offence under s 63(6) of the 2014 Act. Before the District Judge, whilst the respondent accepted that he had been awkward with the police and had deliberately set out to give them grounds to think that he had been drinking alcohol in breach of the PSPO, it was his contention that the requirement of reasonable belief was a continuing process. Accordingly, when he had made the police constable aware that the can did not contain alcohol, the requirement to surrender it fell away and no offence had been committed. Since the District Judge accepted this submission, he dismissed the information. In the present appeal by way of case stated, two questions were posed for the High Court’s consideration: (i) was the offence complete when the police constable issued the FPN given that at that time, he reasonably believed that the container which the respondent had been holding contained alcohol?; and (ii) had the District Judge erred in holding that the offence was not then complete, that the police constable’s reasonable belief was a continuing process so that the respondent was able to belatedly show that there was no alcohol in the container, thereby enabling the offence to be dismissed?

中文翻译：

---

违反 PSPO 饮酒：犯罪何时完成？Wycombe District Council v Snowball [2020] EWHC 1656 (Admin)

在涉嫌犯罪发生时，根据《2014 年反社会行为犯罪和警务法》第 59 条制定的公共空间保护令 (PSPO) 已生效。这禁止任何人在禁区内饮酒或使用打开的酒精容器。2018 年 12 月 20 日，被申请人在该地区。他拿着一个开着的罐子，上面贴着“福斯特啤酒”的标签，两名警察看到他喝了酒。其中一名警员有理由相信，由于标签上的原因，该容器中装有酒精，而且被申请人拒绝交出它或对其内容提供解释。因此，他警告答辩人，他有理由相信他违反 PSPO 饮酒，并再次要求他交出罐头。当答辩人再次拒绝时，他被警告如果他继续拒绝交出容器，他将被发出定额罚款通知书（FPN），因为这种行为构成犯罪。因此，根据 2014 年法案第 68 条，被告继续拒绝交出罐头，导致他获得了 FPN。这时，他声称罐子里装有橙色的非酒精液体，并开始倒出。尽管从未分析过罐头的内容物，但警员承认，在这个阶段，他不再有理由相信罐头中含有酒精。由于答辩人没有支付 FPN 要求的金额，因此他被指控犯有 2014 年法令第 63（6）条项下的罪行。在地区法官面前，虽然答辩人承认他与警方相处不融洽，并故意让他们有理由认为他违反了 PSPO 饮酒，但他的论点是，合理相信的要求是一个持续的过程。因此，当他让警察知道罐子里不含酒精时，交出它的要求就消失了，也没有犯法。由于地区法官接受了这一意见，他驳回了该信息。在本案的上诉中，提出了两个问题供高等法院考虑：(i) 当警察发出 FPN 时，犯罪是否已经完成，因为当时他有理由相信答辩人所拥有的集装箱一直持有含酒精？