TEENAGE members of a criminal gang thought to be behind a range of drug, weapon and robbery offences in Basingstoke will no longer be able to meet, The Gazette can reveal.

A judge has today imposed an injunction on the group following a court hearing. 

Hampshire Constabulary applied to the courts to impose a ban to stop ten young males who they say belong to “Basingstoke Street Gang” from congregating. The boys are aged between 16 and 17. 

The teenagers, from various areas including Beggarwood, South Ham, Popley, and Buckskin, have been banned from any contact with one another after involvement in the “very real problem” of gang activity, Basingstoke Magistrates’ Court heard today (March 19).

The boys - who cannot be identified for legal reasons - will all be required to cease contact with one another for the next two years and engage with education and children’s services - with five also instructed that they may only have one phone and SIM card.

It means that, should they be caught breaching the order by meeting, they can be arrested and subject to criminal proceedings.

The district judge said he was “without a doubt” that all ten were in some way involved with “gang activities”.

Mr Crorie, barrister on behalf of Hampshire Constabulary, put forward applications for gang injunctions against each of the ten, citing evidence of connections to one another and involvement in robberies, drug dealing, weapon possession, and violence. 

Five adult males are also due to appear in court in Portsmouth next week, also subject to injunction applications for involvement in the street gang.

Objections against the proposed injunctions were made by representatives on behalf of each of the ten respondents, who claimed many of the group were friends who had grown up together. 

Concerns included feeling that previous incidents cited had often not led to convictions,or lacked any connection to ‘gang activities’ such as common characteristics including marks or clothing, as well as concerns about the amount of consultation done with relevant authorities, and the effect of isolation from friendship groups on the respondents.

Ms Jay, representing two of the teenagers, said that the incidents put forward in relation to her clients would be “very difficult to conclude were gang related” and that “there is a distinct lack of evidence” to suggest gang related violence. 

She also cited their “vulnerability”, adding: “One of the things that increase a child’s vulnerability is social exclusion. In my submission, they need community ties.”

She urged that “a draconian order” be avoided until all alternative avenues are explored.

Mr Smith , representing one respondent questioned the “lawfulness” of the constabulary’s applications, saying that there had not been “adequate consultation with relevant parties”. 

He added that the evidence provided in statements was “hearsay” and that it would be “unreasonable” for the court to take it at face value “without an investigation”. 

Rebutting the points raised, Mr Crorie said that to suggest consultation was unlawful would mean the court would have to find the signed certificates of various authorities to be “a sham”, adding that there is “no requirement” for the respondents to have been convicted of the offences they are linked to for an injunction application to be made.

District Judge Tim Pattinson said: “The Chief Constable of Hampshire has asked me to make orders called a gang injunction. 

“The incidents covered in the papers covered a lengthy period. It is beyond credibility in my view to suggest that the youth offending team or children’s services just rubber-stamp something that is going to involve them a substantial amount of work if an injunction is made.

“I am satisfied without any doubt that there has been effective and adequate consultation.”

The judge went on to rule that the evidence did indicate gang activity, adding: “There is an immense amount of evidence.  The general evidence is from a number of persons but in particular Sergeant Ian Davies who sets the scene and paints a picture of a very real problem in Basingstoke involving actual violence, threats of violence, robberies, possession of weapons and evidence of drug dealing. 

“It’s misconceived to view individual cases as requiring lengthy records of convictions, although some of you do have convictions.”

The judge added that charts provided to him indicate a “web of contacts” between the teens, “which in my view are entirely consistent with gang activity.”

He said: “By the nature of a case of this type some of you will have been more involved with gang activity than others. There may be some leaders and some followers. Some are more involved in robberies, some are more involved in drug dealing, some are more involved in possession of weapons. 

“I am satisfied so I am sure of your involvement in gang activities and consequently the need for me to make an injunction.” 

When is an injunction used to break up gangs?

Gang injunctions were introduced by the Home Office as part of the Policing and Crime Act 2009, to try to break gang culture. 

It's a civil tool that can be used by police or local authorities by applying to the court.

To make an injunction, the judge must find "on the balance of probabilities" that the person has engaged with, encouraged or assisted with gang-related violence or drug dealing. 

They must also be convinced that such an order is necessary to prevent gang-related activities, or to protect a person coerced or forced into such involvement.

An injunction can either prohibit or require specific activities, or both.

While its a civil matter, breaching a gang injunction order is a criminal offence.