The Government is to appeal against the High Court's ruling today restricting what police can do in child curfew zones after a legal case brought by a 15-year-old boy in Richmond.

The teenager, referred to as "W" for legal reasons, successfully sought a ruling that the curfew zones cannot be used to penalise innocent young people.

The curfew zones had been an important part of the Government's plans to tackle anti-social behaviour, aimed at preventing young people from hanging around, intimidating passers by. Until now, any unaccompanied child under 16 who ventured into a curfew zone when the ban is in force - usually after 9pm - has been liable to arrest and forced escort home, whether or not they are suspected of bad behaviour.

Those powers of arrest have been overturned by the High Court's ruling today. In a statement afterwards, "W" said: "Of course I have no problem with being stopped by the police if I’ve done something wrong. But they shouldn’t be allowed to treat me like a criminal just because I’m under 16."

W’s lawyers argued that, in a democracy, only those suspected of wrongdoing should be subject to sanctions such as curfews and police arrest. W was backed by the human rights campaign group Liberty in bringing his case.

Alex Gask, Liberty’s legal officer acting for W, said: "This is a victory for the presumption of innocence, and the right of everyone, no matter what their age, not to be subjected to coercive powers without good cause."

A Home Office spokeswoman denied that curfew zones had been abolished - only that children could not be arrested and escorted home. The Government will appeal the ruling, she added.

She said: "This judgment does not mean that the authorisations which are in force are invalid, or prevent the police making authorisations in future, and does not prevent the police from using their power to disperse groups.

"This judgment does affect the police’s ability to use their power to take children home. We believe that the police should have reasonable force to take children home. Otherwise the police could do nothing if a child refused to be taken home. We will be appealing to the Court of Appeal."

She said that curfews were important to reassure the public. ’Teenagers hanging around’ was seen a big cause of concern to the public in the British Crime Survey, she said.

She claimed the dispersal powers were being used "creatively" across the country to tackle problems including underage drinking, joyriding, noise nuisance, throwing fireworks, and the harassment and intimidation of residents.

Today’s test case arose after the police and Richmond council set up curfew zones in W's area last year under section 30 (6) of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003. "Dispersal areas" were established in Richmond town centre between the second week of June and October 29, and in Ashburnham Road, Ham, Surrey, between December 24 and January 4, 2005.

Explore UK News

• Crime News

• Education News

• Health News

• Scotland News

Times Recommends

• Oh no, Mr Darling: you have failed
• BBC survives dogfight over Kennel Club expose
• Where the Rosetta belongs can’t be set in stone