Magistrates reject police bid for order against man’s nuisance behaviour

Police have failed in a bid to have a Criminal Behaviour Order placed upon an “intimidating” Boston man they say is a nuisance to the public.

Town magistrates on Wednesday June 28 turned down the application after hearing that there were just two matters against 56-year-old Carl Pagden in the last 12 months.

Pagden, of Monteith Crescent, was convicted last month of a public order offence and failing to comply with a community protection notice.

Police were twice called to reports of drunken Pagden being a nuisance in Elizabeth Road before and after midnight on January 17.

The court was told that the offence put him in breach of a community protection notice which had been imposed to prevent him doing anything to cause a negative impact on the local community.

A statement by PC James Pudney said Pagden has a “detrimental effect” on the neighbourhood and his offending is often accompanied by being “excessively drunk”.

The officer described the defendant’s behaviour as a nuisance to pub landlords and emergency services, adding: “His behaviour can be quite intimidating.

“Unless measures are put in place, he will continue with anti-social behaviour in Boston.”

The proposed terms of the Criminal Behaviour Order (CBO) included not being a nuisance or annoyance to any retail premises, not to enter licensed premises without permission and not to engage with anyone not known to him while under the influence of alcohol.

At last month’s hearing for the January offence, Pagden was given a 12-month conditional discharge, fined £50 and ordered to pay £26 victim surcharge.

Solicitor Helen Coney said that conditional discharge was already hanging over him for the next year and the guidelines for the imposition of a CBO refer only to offending for the past 12 months.

She added: “Since May last year there have only been two incidents, including on September 7 refusing to leave The Carpenter’s Arms.”

Miss Coney added that Pagden had “significantly reduced” his drinking since engaging with alcohol support provider We Are With You.

The bench agreed that the pattern of his behaviour over the past year did not warrant granting the order.