asbo ambiguity

I was intrigued to see that the Govt may be abolishing ASBOs. I have recently had something to do with ASBOs, for the first time in my career. The first case involved a 13 year old lad from the Liverpool area who was given an order prohibiting him from 'being in public in the city of Liverpool' with - and it named several people. The form was: "...may not be in public in the city of Liverpool with Nick Cable and David Brown and Gordon Clegg and Tony Cameron...' etc.
One of the people on the verboten list lived only two doors from the lad and they apparently bumped into each other in the street one day just as a cop car was passing. I told the court that I thought the list could be interpreted to mean he wasn't allowed to be with ALL of the group, not ANY of the group. Furthermore, I wondered if he really understood what being 'in public' meant. A youngster of 13 may not necessarily have the same idea of 'in public' that adults do. A lot of youngsters think 'in public' means being at a shopping centre, a mall, or something of that nature. Also, would a kid who lives in the suburbs, as this one did, necessarily think that this was 'in the city of Liverpool'? I'm pleased to say the court decided not to pursue the matter any further.
The second ASBO case involved a 15 year old who also interpreted and...and...and as referring to the collective group and not just any single person in the group. The judge agreed with me that the order was ambiguously phrased, but he still found the youth guilty of breaching his ASBO.
I've had a number of cases recently where judges agree with your evidence, and they even say so in court, but they somehow manage to disregard it all the same.