Leaflet: Distributed around Brent

In an important victory for ministers, judges ruled a council had acted legally by identifying gang members in publicity to thousands of homes.

Judges said the council had not breached human rights laws, a decision which has implications for other local councils planning similar moves.

The Home Office described the ruling as a victory for local communities.

The High Court heard how a gang of seven had created mayhem over two years in Brent, north London, until the council won an Anti-Social Behaviour Order (Asbo) in September 2003.

For the Metropolitan Police, Christopher Johnston told the court it was hard to appreciate "the hell of the residents' daily existence".

Complaints against the gang included damage to windows, workmen chased off the estate, fuses stolen to leave elderly residents in darkness, assaults and the intimidation of cleaners who needed security guards just to do their job.

Such was the level of bad behaviour, residents had lost faith in the authorities and many were terrified to leave their homes.

After winning the Asbo, the council and police chiefs used new powers to leaflet residents with photographs of the gang, saying the authorities had won in "keeping crime off the streets of Brent".

Publicity unjustified

But three of the gang, teenagers Jovan Stanley, William Marshall and Martin Kelly said the publicity following the Asbo was unjustified.

Anti-social behaviour orders are only effective if we can let local people know who is subject to an order and what they can and cannot do as a result of them Ann John, Brent Council

For the teenagers, Michael Fordham, said while publicising Asbos was part of the law, in this case it had gone too far.

Publishing personal details and photographs in this manner had been unnecessary, he argued, especially after the information ended up on the internet, gaining worldwide exposure.

In their ruling, Lord Justice Kennedy and Mr Justice Treacy dismissed applications for judicial review, saying the publicity had been "justified, reasonable and proportionate", even though the authorities may not have recognised the potential for infringing human rights.

Lord Justice Kennedy said some of the language in the leaflet had been "colourful" - but entirely appropriate in order to alert the community.

He added: "As to the spread of publicity, there is simply no case for contending that it should have been confined to the exclusion area set out in the orders."

Judgement welcomed

A Home Office spokesman said the judgement recognised the right of communities to live in peace.

"The court agreed with the principle that publicity is necessary to help with enforcement of an order. By informing local people of the prohibitions imposed by the order, they are able to identify and report breaches to the police, or to local authorities, social landlords or other bodies who can pass the information to the police for investigation".

Councils and police can name teenagers subject to an anti-social behaviour order - but cannot name them if they breach it and return to court. Home Secretary David Blunkett recently announced he would change the law to allow the naming of any teenager in these circumstances.

Ann John, leader of Brent Council, said she was delighted with the decision.

"The young people in this case had been involved in serious and persistent bad behaviour which was often of a dangerous, threatening and violent nature and the residents who were affected were terrified in their own homes."

"Anti-social behaviour orders are only effective if we can let local people know who is subject to an order and what they can and cannot do as a result of them.

"This ruling empowers us to enforce these orders."