YES - Alex Gask, legal officer, Liberty
I hope the ruling in the 'W' case will remind the Government that the crucial principle behind all this is that it needs to differentiate between those that have done something wrong and those that haven't. And it must recognise that labelling all young people as a threat to the rest of society is both unhelpful, in that it doesn't target those that are actually causing problems, and dangerous, in that it can further alienate those young people who don't feel part of society.
I'd like to think a victory along the lines that we've had in this case, where the court has acknowledged specifically the right of every young person to be treated as an individual, would indicate to the Government that it needs to adopt that approach in the rest of its antisocial behaviour agenda.
On a practical level, the police won't be able to remove under-16s regardless, but it won't take away other extremely broad powers that are part of the antisocial behaviour agenda, such as the dispersal powers that remain in place in the curfew zones.
YES - Carolyne Willow, national co-ordinator, Children's Rights Alliance for England
It's tricky, because the law itself is not saying only young people who are acting antisocially can be removed - it's all under-16s, so in that sense it was never about antisocial behaviour, it was about young people being off the streets. But it is framed within the antisocial behaviour agenda, so the answer would be yes.
The ruling was absolutely correct in confirming children and young people's rights to enjoy community space. It is difficult to see how this legislation was ever meant to tackle antisocial behaviour.
If young people are acting unlawfully, the police have powers to arrest them. If young people are in need of protection, the police have powers to remove them to safety.
Lord Justice Brookes' ruling gives a clear message to young people: the police don't have the power to force you to return home, just because you are under 16.
NO - Chris Stanley, head of youth crime, Nacro
I'd like to think it would, but the Government will just brush aside this ruling and carry on with its antisocial behaviour agenda, because it is a vote catcher. It is not concerned whether things work. There is no evidence that antisocial behaviour orders work, but the Government is still proceeding with more and more restrictive measures against young people.
On the face of it, the ruling is unlikely to make a dramatic difference to what happens on the ground anyway, because it just removes the power of the police to arrest and take home, and I don't know whether any police were actually doing that.
But it is a good first step, and there will be other challenges to the law. Young people don't premeditate their crimes. They don't think about consequences, by and large, so using more and more Draconian measures isn't going to have much impact.
NO - Juliet Lyon, director, Prison Reform Trust
This was a very important judgment in that it established the right of young people to be recognised as citizens of this country. But this ruling alone will not be enough to check a government seemingly intent on introducing punitive civil measures and legislation that has a particularly negative impact on young lives. The fact that the case had to be brought is an indictment of the lack of respect for young people.
Despite the youth justice reforms, the number of 15- to 17-year-olds in prison has doubled in the past 10 years. Almost three-quarters of the Youth Justice Board budget is tied up with custodial provision rather than preventive and community work. And there is growing evidence that breaches of antisocial behaviour orders are fast-tracking yet more children and young people to jail.
Criminal justice policy needs to be brought in line with policy on social inclusion. Until, and unless, the false divide between children in need and children who offend is healed, it is difficult to see how our most troubled and troubling young people can be enabled to take their places alongside others as UK citizens.
