17 Duty to consider crime and disorder implications
Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (1998 c 37) | Legislation

Miscellaneous and supplemental

17  Duty to consider crime and disorder implications

(1)     Without prejudice to any other obligation imposed on it, it shall be the duty of each authority to which this section applies to exercise its various functions with due regard to the likely effect of the exercise of those functions on, and the need to do all that it reasonably can to prevent,

[(a)     crime and disorder in its area (including anti-social and other behaviour adversely affecting the local environment); and

(b)     the misuse of drugs, alcohol and other substances in its area][; and

(c)     re-offending in its area][; and

(d)     serious violence

Powered by Lexis+®
 

Popular documents

LEXISNEXIS

Serving outside the jurisdiction with court permission—application and order

This Practice Note addresses issues when serving out of the jurisdiction and the permission of the court is required. It explains how to make an application and the form of order required. An application to serve out of the jurisdiction is generally made without notice and on the papers. Key

LEXISNEXIS

Mistake in contract law

Mistake in contract lawThis Practice Note considers the legal concept of mistake in contract law. It examines common mistake, mutual mistake, unilateral mistake, mistake as to identity and mistake as to the document signed (non est factum). It also considers the impact of each of these types of

LEXISNEXIS

Recklessness in criminal cases

Recklessness in criminal casesWhat is recklessness?In respect of some statutory offences and common law crimes the prosecution are required to prove a mental element of recklessness on the part of the defendant.Recklessness means unjustified risk taking on the part of the accused.Prior to the House

LEXISNEXIS

Standard of care in professional negligence claims

Standard of care in professional negligence claimsThis Practice Note considers the standard of care in professional negligence claims, originally formulated in Bolam v Friern Hospital as being that of reasonable skill and care but now reconsidered following Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health. It