Magistrates yesterday refused to make a criminal behaviour order in respect of a Flintshire man.
Police wanted to make Anthony Knight, 25, of Corwen Road, Treuddyn, subject to a five year order with various restrictions.
But it was opposed by solicitor Steven Alis who said much of the allegations did not relate to his client.
Flintshire Magistrates’ Court at Mold refused to make the order.
They said they were satisfied that anti-social behaviour had occurred at an address in Hazel Drive at Penyffordd which would have warranted the making of a criminal behaviour order.
But they were not satisfied the prosecution had proved its case against Anthony Knight himself or shown that he was responsible.
Knight said that justice had been served and thanked the bench.
The prosecution said that in May the defendant was convicted of drug driving in Penyffordd.
But he denied trying to get away or holding his keys in his hand in such a way that they could have been used as a weapon – and had not been charged with doing it, he said.
Resident Edward Reeves spoke of a VW Golf car being driven in Hazel Drive at speed, cars being maintained in the roadway and engines revving at all hours, and shouting and swearing coming from a particular address.
But cross-examined by Mr Alis he agreed that “hand on heart” he could not say that Anthony Knight personally was responsible.
PC Natalie Williams of the Safer Neighbourhood Scheme at Mold detailed reports the police had received of anti-social behaviour.
She said the language and behaviour used meant residents did not feel safe and some would not allow their children to play out because of the speed of cars.
Monitoring equipment had shown that the revving of engines was incredibly loud.
Flintshire County Council had sent out questionnaires to residents, 19 were returned and 17 wished to remain anonymous fearing reprisals if they spoke out against the Knight family, she said.
She said that Anthony Knight had been named by residents and said the behaviour had to stop.
Mr Alis told magistrates that the prosecution were “clutching at straws” and were simply “chucking mud”.
Much of the prosecution’s own evidence was generalised and did not identify his client, he said.
Anthony Knight said that he lived at Treuddyn with his partner and three children and he visited Hazel Drive two or three times a week to help his sister care for his nan who had dementia.
He had never been abusive to people in the street, never maintained cars in the street and the Subaru car alleged to have been revved loudly was owned by his father and was nothing to do with him.
In evidence he said that at a time when an incident was alleged between Christmas and New Year he was away, staying in Frodsham.
He agreed that on one occasion he had an argument with his sister, but denied the language alleged.
And he said that he had driven his partner’s VW Golf at one stage without realising that in his absence a court had imposed penalty points which meant that he had reverted to being a provisional driver.
Mr Alis said the courts would be very busy if everyone who argued with a sibling was to be made the subject of a criminal behaviour order.
His client had driven without the proper class of licence at one stage, but that had been a genuine error.
He had admitted drug driving and had been fined and banned by the court previously. Some allegations dated back to a period when his cliet was in custody.
If the court was satisfied that there had been noise and general misbehaviour they could not be satisfied on the evidence that his client was at all responsible, he said.
He argued that a criminal behaviour order was simply not necessary and could not be warranted on the evidence they had heard.