Devon & Cornwall Police | Anti-Social Behaviour & Escalation Poli








Force Policy & Procedure: Anti-Social Behaviour & Escalation Policy 

Reference Number:D290 

Policy Version Date: 26 April 2016 

Review Date: 25 April 2017 

Policy Ownership Local Policing & Partnership Department 

Portfolio Holder Assistant: Chief Constable (LPP) 

Links or overlaps with other policies See section 6 

1. Policy Statement 

1.1 The mission of Devon and Cornwall Police is to detect and prevent harm, protect the vulnerable and reduce crime. Working together as one team to safeguard communities and neighbourhoods, we are sustainable and resilient and provide a high quality service to the public acting in accordance with the national Code of Ethics and our Force standards of behaviour.

1.2 In pursuit of these aims, the Force will seek to work in partnership with our partner agencies, to ensure that Anti-Social Behaviour is tackled with the appropriate balance between support for those who are willing to accept it and swift, effective enforcement for those who are not.

1.3 Anti-social behaviour (ASB) is defined under section 2 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014

1.4 This policy is written with regard to the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, Devon and Cornwall Force Strategy, the OPCC Policing and Crime Plan and the Home Office Statutory Guidance. OFFICIAL For Public Release [FOIA – Open]

1.5 The Police perspective in partnership working brings a focus on Public Protection, Action and Enforcement. It supports efforts of education, prevention and reduction.

1.6 Penalty Notices for Disorder will be taken into consideration with regard to any evidence gathering in relation to applying for a Criminal Behaviour Order.

1.7 This policy should be read with reference to TP05 Criminal Behaviour Orders Working Practice.

1.8 Devon and Cornwall Police will only apply for a Civil Injunction or Criminal Behaviour Order for an individual after going through the processes described in this document.

1.9 In the application of this policy staff are reminded of the need to comply with the standards and principles of the Code of Ethics for policing.

1.10 In the application of this policy staff are reminded of the need to comply with the Equality Act 2010.

2. Introduction 

2.1 This policy sets out the structure for dealing with persistent Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) at individual case level throughout Devon, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. It has been drafted following consultation with Partner agencies such as Local Authorities, Health, Probation, Education and Social Services.

2.2 The structure is intended to be a common basic framework of minimum standards. This is to allow a flexible and adaptable response at the local level (Community Safety Partnerships) that can take advantage of local opportunities and recognise local constraints. It is not intended to be prescriptive. This is in recognition of the differing needs of our diverse communities.

2.3 Individual agencies may have their own internal mechanisms for dealing with ASB. It is not intended that this structure should replace these. It is intended that this structure should form a framework within which the work of differing agencies can be brought together to ensure that enforcement methods such as Civil Injunctions and Criminal Behaviour Orders are not sought without making use of warnings, support and joint interventions where appropriate.

2.4 It is intended that the Partnerships would use every tool at their disposal to offer persistent offenders the opportunity to help themselves. However if these efforts were ignored, swift and effective enforcement would follow.

2.5 This policy places value on our communities and is aimed at increasing public confidence in our service by use of a partnership culture firmly linking this policy to the Force Strategy. OFFICIAL For Public Release [FOIA – Open]

3. Procedures 

3.1. The ASB process begins when an individual comes to the attention of a partner agency for behaviour considered to be “Anti-Social”. This has been defined in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 as “conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person, conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises, or conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person”.

3.2 Stage 1 

3.2.1 The partner agency may use their own internal mechanisms for dealing with the ASB. Referrals may have been made to other agencies; routes to receiving help (involving other agencies) may have been sign posted for the individual. However as a minimum standard evidence would be required that:

 The individual (and parent/guardian where appropriate) had been contacted. Note: This should be done by letter, and where appropriate by a visit in person as well. The letter would provide documentary evidence of the points below.

 It had been explained to the individual why it was felt that the behaviour was unacceptable.

 It had been explained to the individual the likely implications for the individual in terms of the ASB structure if there is a recurrence of the behaviour.

 A contact point had been given to the individual concerned for any queries.

3.2.2 It is strongly recommended that where children and young people are concerned the Youth Offending Team is contacted at this stage.

3.2.3 The Gatekeeper within the partner agency would decide at which point to move the escalation process up to stage 2.

3.2.4 Within LPAs the nominated liaison officer will decide at which point to move the escalation process up to stage 2.

3.3 Stage 2 

3.3.1 At stage 2 the Community Safety Partnership ASB Co-ordinator is informed. At this stage the minimum standards require that:

 The ASB Co-ordinator has a point of contact within the partner agency.

 The ASB Co-ordinator is satisfied that the minimum standards at stage 1 have been met.

 The ASB Co-ordinator actively gathers intelligence on the individual concerned from partner agencies.

OFFICIAL For Public Release [FOIA – Open]

 The ASB Co-ordinator would ensure that the individual concerned is aware of the seriousness of the behaviour in question and was aware of the consequences should this behaviour continue. This should be done by letter which, would provide documentary evidence and reinforced by a personal visit if appropriate.

3.3.2 In all cases where a child or young person is involved the ASB Co-ordinator will inform the Youth Offending Team at this stage.

3.4 Stage 3 

3.4.1 This stage of the process is reached if the ASB persists or is of such proportions that intervention at this stage is required to address the behaviour concerned. The minimum standards at this stage require that:

 The individual concerned is informed by letter of the meeting/consultation.

 A multi-agency meeting/consultation takes place, where each agency in the partnership is represented.

 The role of this multi-agency forum is to discuss support and enforcement that can be brought to bear and to offer the advice and assistance of the forum to partner agencies as appropriate.

 The multi-agency forum would be responsible for the review and monitoring of individual cases at subsequent meetings, until the problem is felt to be resolved.

3.4.2 It is recognised that a consensus on the appropriate course of action to be taken may not always be reached. In cases where such consensus is not reached it will be for the statutory agencies to determine the course of action for fulfilling their obligations under Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 which creates a statutory duty for agencies to consult each other on matters regarding crime, disorder and anti-social behaviour, which led to the creation of the Community Safety Partnerships.

4. Audit / Assessment Compliance 

4.1 This policy has been drafted and audited in accordance with the principles of Human Rights legislation, the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, Disability Discrimination Act 1995, the Policing Bureaucracy Gateway and Freedom of Information Act 2000. Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the document is classified as ‘Open’.

5. Review and Ownership 

5.1 The review of the contents of this policy is the responsibility of the Head of the Local Policing and Partnerhips Department. Review of the policy will be undertaken annually. OFFICIAL For Public Release [FOIA – Open]

26/04/2016 5 Force Publication Scheme

6 Useful Links 

6.1 TP05 – ASBO Working Practice

Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 

Home Office Statutory Guidance 

Penalty Notices for Disorder

DCP e-briefing

Community Triggers Guidance

ASB Help | Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014





The Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 is the law that guides what agencies can do about anti-social behaviour.

It made big changes to the way agencies deal with anti-social behaviour.

They made things simpler and faster.

Victims of anti-social behaviour can now demand a review of their situation where nothing seems to have been done. This is great news.  The law sets out the following 6 tools for agencies:

1. Injunction – forbids someone from doing something.   There are 2 tests.  Causing nuisance and annoyance in residential setting.  Causing harassment, alarm or distress elsewhere.

An injunction can be granted against a person aged 10 or over if two conditions are met: (i) the court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the person has engaged or threatens to engage in anti-social behaviour; and (ii) the court considers it just and convenient to grant the injunction to prevent the person engaging in anti-social behaviour.

An injunction can be applied for by the police, a local authority, a housing provider,  the British Transport Police Force, Transport for London, the Environment Agency or the NHS Business Services Authority. The fact that it can be applied for by a range of agencies should improve the current ASB Injunction, ensuring it can be used in a wider range of circumstances such as anti-social behaviour against hospital staff, shop staff, and nightmare neighbours in the private rented sector.

An injunction is granted for a specific period of time, will name the person responsible for supervising compliance with the injunction and can include a power of arrest if breached. The injunction will require the person who is committing anti-social behaviour either to do a certain thing or prohibit them from doing a certain thing with the aim of stopping the anti-social behaviour and also preventing the individual involved from getting into crime. This is a purely civil order, and does not give the individual a criminal record.


An example given by the Home Office (in “Putting Victims First”) seeks to illustrate how the Injunction will enable agencies to protect victims more quickly and more effectively than the current system:

An individual renting a property in the private rented sector who was regularly using abusive language towards their owner occupier neighbours and threatening them. Under the current system local agencies could take months to apply to the courts for an ASBO (Anti-Social Behaviour Order), during which time the neighbours would continue to suffer as a result of the individual’s increasingly threatening behaviour. Under the new system, local agencies could, in a matter of hours, apply to the civil courts to get an injunction on the individual, providing respite to their neighbours and preventing the behaviour from escalating.

[Note: this would be a ‘without notice injunction’ which can be served by the court where there is a serious risk of harm (physical or pyschological). The agency applying for it does not need to prove the perpetrator has done the ASB – this comes later at the full court hearing usually a couple of weeks later.

Positive Requirements

The inclusion of positive requirements is new in comparison to the old Injunction to prevent nuisance and annoyance, employed by landlords. To include a positive requirement within the terms of an injunction, eg. Attendance on a drugs rehabilitation course, the agency asking for it must:

  • believe it is necessary;
  • have the resource to make it happen; and
  • have a named individual or organisation who will ensure compliance with this requirement.

in practice, there is a concern that it will be difficult to find people who will take on this management as it means they have a duty to promote compliance with the order and a duty to tell the agency that applied for the injunction if it has been breached.

Our Analysis

The Government proposed introducing the Injunction because it is something that agencies can secure quickly (according to Home Office information, in a matter of days or even hours) to stop an individual’s anti-social behaviour and protect victims. As such it would be much faster to use than the previous, infamous ASBO and could be used at an earlier stage and secured using the civil burden of proof (on the balance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt).

This all sounds promising. What remains to be seen is whether obtaining these injunctions will be as quick and easy as suggested and whether breach of these injunctions will be monitored and further action taken. Since early intervention brings greater success in stopping anti-social behaviour, it would seem likely that for individuals committing anti-social behaviour for the first or second time, this crime prevention injunction might give them the shock they need to stop doing it.

There is also a potential risk with so many agencies able to apply for an Injunction of duplication with two or more different agencies applying for an Injunction against the same individual. Where more than one agency is involved, there may also be delay and confusion as to which agency should take the lead. Effective partnership working and communication will be key.

The injunction is essentially replacing the infamous ASBO (Anti-Social Behaviour Order). One of the reasons the ASBO is infamous is because so many were breached, and also because it gave a lot of the holders of such orders ‘street cred’ amongst their peers.

Gloria de Piero, Shadow Home Office Minister, expressed her concerns in The Independent with respect to the Injunction being a ‘tool without teeth’ since a breach won’t result in a criminal record because it won’t be a crime.  She went on to say that the police would have to pay to pursue a breach under contempt of court, a particular challenge given their current financial constraints.  She supports the ‘much maligned Asbos’ saying many who received one never offended again.

An Injunction can only include a power of arrest if breached where the anti-social behaviour includes use or threatened use of violence or there is a significant risk of harm to others.  We suggest that this lacks any real deterrent for offenders who are given these injunctions for incidents of ASB that may be non-violent/non-threatening but are nevertheless causing misery to individuals and communities.

2. Criminal Behaviour Order – this is for if someone convicted of a crime if the court thinks they will continue to cause anti-social behaviour.  They can give a Criminal Behaviour Order to stop them doing this anti-social behaviour.

The Criminal Behaviour Order is being introduced to give agencies and communities what they need to deal with the hard-core of persistently anti-social individuals who are also engaged in criminal activity. The court may make a criminal behaviour order against the offender if two conditions are met: (i) the person has engaged in behaviour that caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to one or more persons; and (ii) the court considers that making the order will help in preventing the offender from engaging in such behaviour.

The court may make a criminal behaviour order against the offender only if it is made in addition to a) a sentence imposed in respect of the offence, or b) an order discharging the offender conditionally. If the offender is under 18, the prosecution must find out the views of the local youth offending team before applying for a criminal behaviour order.

A criminal behaviour order is granted for a specific period of time and if it includes a requirement, must specify the person who is to be responsible for supervising compliance. It may include provision for the order (or a prohibition or requirement included in the order) to cease to have effect if the offender satisfactorily completes an approved course specified in the order.
Breaching the order would have tough criminal sanctions with a maximum sentence of 5 years in prison.


An example given by the Home Office (in “Putting Victims First”) seeks to illustrate how the Criminal Behaviour Order will enable agencies to deal more effectively with anti-social behaviour:

A young person convicted of criminal damage after having broken the window of an elderly person’s house following an ongoing campaign of harassment. Under the current system, they could be prevented from going near their victim’s house, but under the new system, the same order could also require them to make good the damage to the victim’s window and engage with a mentoring programme to address the reasons why they were harassing the victim.

Our Analysis

The criminal behaviour order is essentially replacing the ASBO on conviction (Anti-Social Behaviour Order), which had previously been awarded as an additional preventative measure when someone was already in court on a criminal charge.

The new Criminal Behaviour Order is for people who have both committed a crime and are engaging in anti-social behaviour. The government itself talks about the hard-core offenders. It seems somewhat improbable that attendance on a course will make such a striking difference. Also in the example above, there is a contradiction between keeping away from the victim but also ‘making good the damage’ to the window.

We would suggest that the success of attendance on courses would need to be closely monitored. It is also unclear how long the procedure would take to secure Criminal Behaviour Orders (note: unlike the Crime Prevention Injunction, a judge must be convinced beyond reasonable doubt that the offence was actually committed to issue a Criminal Behaviour Order).

3. Dispersal Powers – allows the police to direct people to leave a public place and not return for a specified time, for example 24 hours.

A constable in uniform may use dispersal powers to direct a person who is in a public place to leave the locality of that place and not to return for a specified period (maximum 48 hours) if two conditions are met: (i) the constable has reasonable grounds to suspect that the presence or behaviour of the person in the locality has contributed to or is likely to contribute to members of the public in the locality being harassed, alarmed or distressed, or the occurrence in the locality of crime of disorder; and (ii) the constable considers that giving a direction to a person under this section is necessary for the purpose of removing or reducing the likelihood of the events mentioned in (i). The constable may also require the surrender of an item being used to harass, alarm or distress members of the public.

The direction must be given in writing (unless not reasonably practicable), specifying the locality to which it relates and imposing requirements as to the time by which the person must leave and the manner in which they must do so (including the route). The constable should tell the person that failing without reasonable excuse to comply with the direction is an offence. If the constable reasonably believes that the offender is under 16, he/she may remove the person to a place where the person lives or a place of safety.

This power is designed to combine the most effective elements of the various current police powers into a single, less bureaucratic police power. A significant limitation in current police powers to disperse individuals causing ASB is that they have to be agreed in advance and can only be used in a pre-arranged area. In a fast moving situation, where groups can quickly convene to cause ASB or disorder and then move to different areas, the current powers are ineffective.

Our Analysis

This power to quickly disperse people causing anti-social behaviour sounds a logical measure though concerns have been raised about why it would be needed for up to 48 hours if the purpose is primarily to disperse individuals in a specific incident.  We hope constables on the beat will be aware of these powers and have received appropriate training in how to use them so that when they see relevant problems arising, they can have the confidence to disperse in accordance with this new tool and not result in potentially volatile situations.

4. Community Protection Notices and Orders – to stop ongoing environmental anti-social behaviour.  This can be used against individuals or organisations.

An authorised person may issue a community protection notice to an individual aged 16 or over, or a body, if satisfied on reasonable grounds that (i) the conduct of the individual or body is having a detrimental effect, of a persistent or continuing nature, on the quality of life of those in the locality; and (ii) the conduct is unreasonable.

A community protection notice may be issued by a constable, the relevant local authority, or a person designated by the relevant local authority for the purposes of this section. A community protection notice imposes any of the following requirements on the individual or body issued with it:

a) A requirement to stop doing specified things
b) A requirement to do specified things
c) A requirement to take reasonable steps to achieve specified results.

They can only be issued if the offender has been given a written warning that the notice will be issued if their conduct doesn’t change and that they have been given enough time to have reasonably made those changes, and yet have chosen not to do so.
A person issued with a community protection notice who fails to comply with it commits an offence.


Examples given by the Home Office (in “Putting Victims First”) to show where the notice could be used include an individual who regularly allows their dog to foul a communal garden and a group regularly taking the same route home late at night whilst drunk, making noise and waking their neighbours (neither of these incidents of persistent ASB are covered by current notices).

Our Analysis

This tool will replace the current Litter Clearing notice, Street Litter Control notice, and Defacement Removal Notices and so should make things more streamlined and therefore more effective, especially if it can now be used more widely than previous legislation permitted. If an offender (individual or organisation) has been warned that they will receive a notice if they do not change their conduct and then a notice is issued which states that failure to comply with it is an offence, it should hopefully push forwards a positive change in conduct.

5. Public Spaces Protection Order– deals with a nuisance or problem in a public area. The order applies to everyone.

A Public Spaces Protection Order is made by a Local Authority if satisfied on reasonable grounds that two conditions are met.

Firstly, that (i) activities carried on in a public place within the authority’s area have had a detrimental effect on the quality of life of those in the locality; and (ii) it is likely that activities will be carried on in a public place within that area and that they will have such an effect.

The second condition is that the effect, or likely effect, of the activities is, or is likely to be of a persistent or continuing nature, such as to make the activities unreasonable, and therefore justifies the restrictions imposed by the notice.

A Public Spaces Protection Order is an order that identifies the public place and prohibits specified things being done in the restricted area and/or requires specified things to be done by persons carrying on specified activities in that area. The order may not have effect for more than 3 years and the Local Authority must consult with the chief officer of the police and the local policing body before issuing the order.

Failure to comply with a public spaces protection order is an offence.


Examples given by the Home Office (in “Putting Victims First”) to show where the order could be used include to prevent groups from using a public square as a skateboard park and to discourage drunken ASB in the same place by making it an offence not to hand over containers of alcohol when asked to do so; and to prevent dogs fouling a public park or being taken into a children’s play area within that park.

Our Analysis

This power replaces the Designated Public Place Order, Gating Orders, and Dog Control Orders and so should make things more streamlined and therefore more effective, especially as it can now be used more widely than previous legislation permitted. Previously a Local Authority could not issue an order such as this without having it signed off by the Secretary of State. Now it can be done at a local level, and Local Authorities and Local Police need to work together to achieve improved quality of life in public spaces, not just to issue an order but to ensure compliance with it.

In practice, the issue of PSPOs has often been contentious because Councils have chosen to use it to ban things like rough sleeping, swearing and busking.

There are calls for improved guidance on how the consultations are undertaken before a Public Spaces Protection Order is implemented.

6. Closure of Premises – prevents entry to a building because the use of that place has resulted in anti-social behaviour.  This could be a house, a pub, etc.

A Police Officer of at least the rank of Inspector, or the Local Authority, may issue a Closure Notice if satisfied on reasonable grounds that the use of the particular premises has resulted or is likely soon to result in nuisance to members of the public, or that there has been or is likely soon to be disorder near those premises associated with the use of those premises, and that the notice is necessary to prevent the nuisance or disorder from continuing, recurring or occurring.

A Closure Notice prohibits access to the premises for a period specified in the notice and may prohibit access by all persons except those specified, at all times and in all circumstances (or those specified).

Whenever a closure notice is issued an application can be made to a magistrates’ court for a closure order. This can be made by a constable or the local authority and must be heard by the magistrates’ court not later than 48 hours after service of the closure notice. A Closure Order can be for up to 3 months.


Examples given by the Home Office (in “Putting Victims First”) to show where a closure notice could be used include closing a nightclub where the police have intelligence to suggest that disorder is likely in the immediate vicinity on a specific Friday night. A closure order might be sought for a premises used for drug dealing or a premises where the persistent behaviour of the residents (eg. Frequent loud parties, harassment and intimidation of neighbours) is associated with serious anti-social behaviour in the immediate vicinity.

Our Analysis

The Closure Notice/Order replaces the Premises Closure Order, Crack House Closure Order, Noisy Premises Closure Order, and Section 161 Closure Order. As such, the ability to close a premises should be more straightforward, without needing to know the different rules for each type of problem occurring in a premises. It is hoped that this will bring much quicker relief and protection for victims of persistent anti-social behaviour linked to a specific property.

In contrast to the Orders that this is replacing the Closure Notice can be applied for before the disturbance has even happened.  This will enable the Police to prevent a rave occurring and a place can be closed for 48 hours without needing to go to Court to get permission first.  We believe this will assist agencies in being more proactive to prevent disturbance and protect victims.

New law for landlords – the Recovery of Possession of Dwelling Houses – allows them to evict certain anti-social tenants.

This measure is to give absolute ground for possession of secure tenancies in specific cases of anti-social behaviour, as long as the landlord has also complied with its legal obligations.

The court must make an order for the recovery of possession of a dwelling-house let under a secure tenancy, if the landlord requests this, if any of the following conditions is met for a tenant, or a person residing in or visiting the dwelling-house:

1. Conviction for a serious offence – in the locality of the tenant’s property, or outside of the locality where the offence is against a neighbour or a person connected with a landlord’s housing management functions.

2. Breach of an Injunction (in the same circumstances as the serious offence above).

3. Breach of a provision of a Criminal Behaviour Order (in the same circumstances as above).

4. The dwelling-house has been subject to a closure order and access has been prohibited for a continuous period of more than 48 hours.

5. Breaching of a Noise Abatement notice or court order in regard to noise nuisance which emitted from the dwelling-house.

Our Analysis

It is our understanding that previous practices made it very difficult, time-consuming and costly for landlords to evict problem tenants. This means that many victims of anti-social behaviour could be suffering for months or even years in spite of the fact that the landlord is in agreement with the victim, recognises the problem, but cannot help any quicker due to current legislative processes.

This measure has been designed to help landlords though it is still a measure seen to be a last resort.  Usually, many early intervention tools have been used with an offender, without success, before eviction is sought.  It is noteworthy that it does not necessarily have to be the tenant who has committed the anti-social behaviour but it could be another person residing in the property or even just visiting the house.

We support early intervention and work with troubled families to improve situations where anti-social behaviour is occurring by one member of the family rather than just evicting them to continue doing the same elsewhere to new neighbours. The picture is more nuanced and we can see there are definitely occasions where a problem, especially one that has escalated in a community, can be most effectively solved by eviction but this will not always be the case.

For LOCAL INVOLVEMENT and ACCOUNTABILITY, the 2014 Act also includes the following 2 measures:

1. Community Remedy – victims will have a say in the punishment of the offender.

A Community Remedy document is a list of actions which might be appropriate to be carried out by a person who has engaged in anti-social behaviour or has committed an offence and is to be dealt with without court proceedings. The document will be prepared by the local policing body and can be revised at any time.

The Community Remedy document must be prepared or revised in consultation with the Chief Officer of Police for the area, whatever community representatives the local policing body thinks it appropriate to consult and undertake whatever other public consultation it thinks appropriate. All of these viewpoints must be taken into account.

The Community Remedy applies where:

a) A person such as a police officer (P) has evidence that an individual (A) has engaged in ASB of committed an offence
b) A admits to P that he or she has done so
c) P thinks that the evidence is enough for taking proceedings against A for a Community Prevention Injunction or taking other court proceedings, but decides that it would be more appropriate for A to carry out action of some sort instead, and
d) Where the evidence is that A has committed an offence, P thinks that the matter is not so serious that a conditional caution is appropriate.
Before deciding what action to invite A to carry out, P must make reasonable efforts to obtain the views of the victim (if any) of the anti-social behaviour, and in particular the victim’s views as to whether A should carry out any of the actions listed in the community remedy document.

Our Analysis

The Community Remedy suggestions will depend on the views of the community in each police force area but could include, for example:

bullet    Mediation (for example, to solve a neighbour dispute);

bullet    The offender signing an Acceptable Behaviour Contract – where they agree not to behave anti- socially in the future, or face more formal consequences;

bullet    Participation in structured activities funded by the Police and Crime Commissioner as part of their efforts to reduce crime; or

bullet    Reparation to the community (for example, by doing local unpaid work for up to 10 hours).

At first glance, these all seem to be sensible measures which could help to deal quickly with some anti-social behaviour and empower both the victim and the local community.

However, the Magistrates Association takes a different view which we believe is worth summarising here:

bullet    The Magistrates Association believes the courts are the proper place for anti-social behaviour to be dealt with so as to ensure transparency and consistency of sentencing and sanction monitoring. They wholly oppose the proposal to invite individual victims to choose an appropriate sanction from a community remedy list which could lead to an offender who offends against a sensitive victim being treated very differently to one who offends against a less bothered one.

bullet    They believe that the removal of judicial supervision combined with the informality of the application and execution of an ever-widening scope of the use of out of court disposals will lead to more, not less offending as well as de-criminalise such behaviour in the mind of the offender and the public at large.

bullet    They believe it will result in wide-spread inconsistencies of practice throughout England and Wales and are concerned that a lack of recording of these out of court disposals will put victims at risk of repeat victimisation of the kind that lead to the deaths of Fiona Pilkington and her daughter in 2007.

bullet    They also express concern about the lack of clarity about who will arrange and supervise the different possible sanctions and measures, whether it be attendance on courses, treatment programmes, reparation of damage or the payment of compensation.

ASB Help is open minded to the new proposals but we hope that the Government takes the Magistrates Association’s points into account as much as possible before rolling out the Community Remedy, especially to ensure that victims are properly protected and feel the problem they are experiencing has been taken seriously enough and an appropriate resolution found.

2. Response to Complaints (Community Trigger) – known as the Community Trigger.  It has the potential to be very useful and powerful to victims who are not getting anywhere with their local agencies.

The Community Trigger is the term generally applied to the Response to Complaints section of the 2014 Act and enables victims to require agencies to carry out a review of their response to the anti-social behaviour they reported where they feel they did not get a satisfactory response.

If a person has made a complaint about anti-social behaviour in a particular local government area the relevant bodies in that area must carry out an ASB case review if

a) that person, or any other person, makes an application for such a review (activates the Community Trigger); and

b) the relevant bodies decide that the threshold for a review is met.

Each Local Authority area sets its own threshold but the most common threshold is likely to be if someone has complained 3 times in a 6 month period and feels nothing has been done.  The review will focus either on the ongoing anti-social behaviour about which the original complaint was made or on the adequacy of the response to that behaviour.  Either way, victims should see a full, independent review of their complaint.

The relevant bodies who carry out an ASB case review must inform the applicant of the outcome of the review and any recommendations made.  They must also publish each year how many triggers have been activated and how many case reviews have been carried out.

Each Local Authority must specify the point of contact for activating the Community Trigger and ensure that applications made to that point of contact are passed on to all the relevant bodies in the local government area. The statutory guidelines advise that this information is made clear and that there be a number of ways of activating the trigger.

By mid-October all Local Authorities in England and Wales should publish this information.  We are compiling a list of all Community Triggers currently live here.

Our Analysis

We are very positive about this new tool as it is a real opportunity for victims to be heard. It sounds great on paper but we hope that this will translate into results. We will be watching it carefully – to see how well it is publicised, how easy organisations make it to activate, and whether they will be as transparent as suggested in the legislation and statutory guidelines.

We suspect some areas may go on the defensive and see it as another complaints process but we hope that it will have a positive impact on problem situations, bringing together all relevant parties to discuss issues and get results. We hope victims feel heard, understand more about what is being done to help them, and as a result gain greater confidence in the agencies involved.

We are concerned that the most vulnerable will not be reached and hope that publicity will focus on getting the word out to those who most need it, who may have been suffering from the effects of anti-social behaviour for years and yet feel ignored as nothing seems to change in spite of them reporting the problems.

In both the above measures, the Police, Local Authority, or other relevant agencies will try and stop a problem quickly when they can.  They can use:

  • verbal warnings
  • written warnings
  • mediation
  • Acceptable Behaviour Contracts

These are called early intervention techniques.  They can be very effective.  Acceptable Behaviour Contracts are agreements in writing between an offender who is under 18 years old and the local authority and police.  The young person agrees not to be involved with certain anti-social acts (this is also witnessed by their parents).

Usually agencies must try early intervention before they can take a case to court.  This is one of the reasons it can take so long to resolve problems involving anti-social behaviour.

Agencies need to follow procedures.  Be patient with this.  Persevere – results are achievable.  


Open Democracy UK | The end of public space: one law to ban them all

Open Democracy logo

The end of public space: one law to ban them all

Laws handing sweeping new powers to police and private security to restrict access to public space are extinguishing the diversity of civic life.

The idea of public space, as it developed in the modern period, was space for the free use and enjoyment of the citizenry. The temper and character of public space should be determined not by any private or public authority, but by the ways in which people choose to use it.

A bill currently passing through the UK parliament will mean the death-knell of this principle. When the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill becomes law in a few weeks, we can say that there is no longer such a thing as public space proper in Britain.

This Bill greatly expands powers for state authorities to control who can do what in public space – to such a degree that councils and the police will have an almost free hand to determine the use of all public spaces from civic squares to rural footpaths.

These new powers include ‘Injunctions for the Prevention of Nuisance and Annoyance’, under which anybody whose activity could cause ‘nuisance and annoyance’ to ‘any other person’ can be issued with an injunction prohibiting them from this activity or imposing positive conditions upon them. This ‘annoyance’ definition is so broad that it could catch most things people do in public space – after all, busking, preaching, protesting, wearing certain clothes, singing etc, all annoy somebody.

Simultaneously ‘Public Space Protection Orders’ (PSPOs) will mean that local authorities can ban activities which they believe have a ‘detrimental effect’ on the ‘quality of life’ of the area. Again, this could catch almost anything – skateboarding, ball games, public drinking, talking loudly and so on. Worse, it is a summary power meaning the authority doesn’t have to consult the public and can be targeted at particular groups. A council could ban homeless or young people from a park, or from a town centre at particular times.

A new dispersal power will allow police to remove any individual from ‘a locality’ for up to 48 hours; and new confiscation powers will allow them to confiscate property which they believe has been used (‘or is likely to be used’) in an activity which ‘harasses, alarms or distresses a member of the public’.

All these powers have precursors. The injunctions replace ‘anti-social behaviour orders’; PSPOs replace separate powers to ban dogs and public drinking. These previous powers were bad enough: the Manifesto Club created a Google map of London at, showing how little of the capital remains untouched by no-leafleting, no-drinking, no dogs or no-protest zones.

But the new bill will take things to an entirely new level, removing existing checks on the use of powers, such as the need for public consultation or to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt. This bill will make authorities’ total control over public space a daily reality.

Similar powers have developed recently across the Western world. In Australia, the ‘prohibited behaviour order’ can be used to prohibit someone who has not been convicted of a crime from activities such as carrying pens or going to a public library. The book, Banished: The new Social Control in Urban America, charts the development of draconian powers in US cities, ranging from ‘stay out of park orders’ which ban somebody from city parks, to ‘stay out of area orders’ which can ban someone from an area of the city, including the entire city centre, and ‘trespass orders’ which prohibit someone from entering particular property, such as a housing estate or shopping mall.

These controls are exerted by a fusion of public and private interests, with state authorities and business interests (who are increasingly the legal owners of what we think of as public space) forming seamless collaborations to restrict what they see as unseemly or ‘messy’ activities. These collaborations include: private security guards issuing fines on behalf of councils; business associations pressuring for new restrictions such as leafleting bans; the police issuing trespass orders on private property without the owner’s consent. This is a new alliance of a business and state elite, set against civil society. What turns out to be ‘messy’ is social life itself – skateboarders, protesters, buskers, leafleteers, children playing games – that is, any activity that is not shopping or getting from A to B.

We need not look to Russia or China, but only to our own squares and streets for a warning of the threat to public space.

What now? I am part of a coalition called Reform Section 1, which successfully convinced the Lords to vote to tighten up Injunctions in the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill. This is good news, but the contents of the Bill are so extreme that amendments at this stage will only solve part of the problem.

What is needed is a comprehensive rediscovery of the idea of public space; and then, its concerted defence against the forces which would squash it out of existence.

This piece first appeared in the Architectural Review

About the author

Josie Appleton is director of the Manifesto Club, a campaign group for freedom in everyday life.

LGIU | Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill 2013


Briefing : Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill 2013

Author: Juliet Morris, LGiU associate

This briefing can also be viewed as a PDF


  • This briefing summarises the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill 2013 which is now before the House of Commons.
  • The Bill introduces a suite of new powers, rationalising and extending local authorities’ capacity to tackle anti-social behaviour. It also gives victims and local people a greater say in the approaches being taken locally.
  • Other measures in the Bill relate to dangerous dogs, forced marriages and firearms, and policing standards in England and Wales.
  • The anti-social behaviour powers will be available to unitary, county and district councils. Lead members and officers responsible for social care, children and young people, neighbourhoods/communities, environmental services and housing will all need to keep abreast of the changes.

Briefing in full

Policy context

The last Government introduced a range of tools for tackling anti-social behaviour. The current government aims to rationalise these and make some significant policy changes including broader powers for public authorities, a change in penalties and a greater involvement of victims and local people.

The reforms follow a period of Home Office policy development and consultation:

  • More effective responses to anti-social behaviour (2011) sought views on proposals to replace the current anti-social behaviour tools with a more streamlined suite of powers: the criminal behaviour order; the crime prevention injunction; the community protection order; the direction power; and the community trigger.
  • The White Paper, Putting Victims First: More effective responses to anti-social behaviour (2012), set out plans to enable local areas to: focus the response to anti-social behaviour on the needs of victims; empower communities to get involved in tackling anti-social behaviour; ensure professionals are able to protect the public quickly; and, focus on long-term solutions.
  • A Draft Anti-Social Behaviour Bill (December 2012) was followed by  a Home Affairs Committee Pre-legislative scrutiny report (February 2013). The Committee welcomed the rationalisation of powers but felt some key elements were missing: Inter-agency working, intelligent information sharing and a network of services. It also made detailed recommendations on the new remedies, some of which have been accepted in the Government’s response.

As promised in the Queen’s Speech earlier this month, the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill 2013 (PDF document) has now been introduced into the House of Commons.

Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

The Bill aims to:

  • cut crime, creating simpler, more effective powers to tackle anti-social behaviour;
  • give victims of anti-social behaviour a voice in local approaches and sanctions;
  • enhance professional standards and confidence in the conduct of the police.

There are also specific provisions on issues including forced marriage, dangerous dogs and firearms control.

The Bill is in thirteen parts. Each one is summarised below with attention paid to those affecting local (unitary, county, district and London borough) authorities.

Part 1 : Injunctions to Prevent Nuisance and Annoyance (IPNA)

These new civil orders will apply to a spectrum of anti-social behaviours and replace the Anti-Social Behaviour Order on application (ASBO), Anti-Social Behaviour Injunction (ASBI), Drinking Banning Order on application, Intervention Orders and Individual Support Orders. The Bill details their scope and procedural application.

A High Court, County Court or Youth Court (in relation to under 18’s) may grant an injunction against anyone aged 10 provided that:

  • the respondent, on the balance of probabilities, has engaged or threatens to engage in conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any person (“anti-social behaviour”); and
  • it is just and convenient to grant the injunction.

The terms of the injunction may prohibit behaviour and/or require positive action, under supervision (for example by local authority or youth offending team or other service provider), in order to prevent recurrence. There is no minimum or maximum term for the injunction for adults. A maximum 12 month term will apply to under 18s.

Applications for an injunction may be made by a local authority, housing provider (including a local authority carrying out its housing management function), chief officer of police (including British Transport Police), Transport for London, the Environment Agency, NHS Protect in England and relevant body in Wales. The Bill defines the notice requirements prior to application.

Housing providers may apply for an injunction in relation to breaches or anticipated breaches of tenancy agreements as a result of a tenant committing or threatening to commit anti-social behaviour, or allowing, inciting or encouraging others to do so.

If violence has been used or threatened or there is a risk of significant harm to others, the injunction may include a power of arrest or, when granted to a housing provider, power to exclude the respondent from their home or specific area.

Breach of an IPNA is punishable as contempt of court – up to two years imprisonment or an unlimited fine, or a Youth Court supervision or detention order.

The court will have discretionary powers to restrict publication of information in order to protect the identity of under 18s; there is no automatic entitlement.

Part 2 : Criminal Behaviour Orders (CBOs)

CBOs are designed to prevent behaviour which causes harassment, alarm or distress. They replace the ASBO on conviction and Drinking Banning Order on conviction.

A court may make a CBO against anyone over the age of 10 following their conviction for any criminal offence provided that:

  • the offender has engaged in behaviour that caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to one or more persons (not of the same household as the offender);
  • the order will assist in preventing the offender from engaging in such behaviour.

Like the IPNA, the order may prohibit behaviour and/or impose positive requirements under supervision.

The prosecution must apply for an order (normally at the instigation of the police or local authority). It is only available against an offender receiving a sentence or conditional discharge. The court can consider evidence that was inadmissible in the criminal proceedings, including hearsay or bad character evidence. The views of the local youth offending team must be sought in relation to under 18s.

A CBO will be either of a fixed period (two years or more) or for an indefinite duration. There is no maximum length. Where a person is under 18, the CBO can only be for a fixed time, between one and three years, and subject to annual review by the police and the local authority (and any other relevant body). The Bill also provides for interim orders as well as variation and discharge procedures.

Breach is a criminal offence, punishable in the same way as an ASBO currently. As above, the courts will have discretion over reporting restrictions of under 18s.

Part 3 : Dispersal powers

The police will have new powers to disperse people causing harassment, alarm or distress, allowing them to direct a person who has committed, or is likely to commit, anti-social behaviour to leave an area and not return for up to 48 hours.

Failure to comply with the direction is a criminal offence with a maximum penalty of £2,500 and/or three months imprisonment. Officers will also be able to require the handover of items causing, or likely to cause anti-social behaviour.

Part 4, Chapter 1 : Community Protection Notices (CPNs)

New powers will be available to tackle unreasonable, ongoing problems or nuisances that are “detrimental to the local community’s quality of life“ (such as noise, graffiti, littering and dog fouling) and target the person responsible. They will replace Litter Clearing Notices, Street Litter Control Notices and Defacement Removal Notices.

CPNs may be issued to anyone over 16, or a business or organisation, requiring them to stop causing the problem and/or take reasonable steps to ensuring it does not occur again. Remedial works or works in default can be added to the notice.

The power to issue CPNs will be available to local authorities (including designated persons within the authority), the police and registered providers of social housing (if designated by the relevant local authority). The Bill prescribes the abatement notice and prosecution procedures to be followed, including the need to allow the responsible person to rectify the situation.

Breach of a CPN is a criminal offence, subject to a fixed penalty notice (£100 maximum) or prosecution. On conviction, magistrates can impose a fine of up to £2,500 (£20,000 on an organisation), and order the forfeiture and destruction of any item used in the commission of the offence.

CPNs do not replace the existing statutory nuisance regime which will prevail where environmental anti-social behaviour meets the threshold for a statutory nuisance (under the Environmental Protection Act 1990).

Part 4, Chapter 2 :  Public Space Protection Orders (PSPOs)

These orders impose conditions on the use of an area in order to address a particular nuisance or problem that is, or might become, detrimental to the local community’s qualify of life. They will replace Designated Public Places Orders, Dog Control Orders and Gating Orders and could be used in lieu of some local byelaws.

PSPOs are exclusive to local authorities which must consult with the police and relevant representatives of the local community (for example, local residents or community group that regularly uses the public place) and be satisfied:

  • on reasonable grounds that the activities carried on or likely to be carried on are detrimental to the local community’s quality of life; and
  • that the impact justifies the restrictions being put in place in a particular area.

An order will impose conditions on the way in which an area is used and can apply to everyone using the space or to certain groups. The order may prohibit behaviours (for example drinking alcohol) or require specific things to be done (for example, keeping dogs on a lead), or include both so that the requirements of a specific place may be addressed in a single order.

Orders will last for up to 3 years and may be extended following a review. They may be varied or discharged at any time by the local authority. The Bill also sets out additional considerations when an order restricts access to a public right of way.

Breach of the order, without reasonable excuse, is a criminal offence, subject to a fixed penalty notice or prosecution and liability for a fine of up to £1,000. Failure to comply with a request to cease drinking or surrender alcohol in a controlled drinking zone punishable on summary conviction to a maximum fine of £500.

Part 4, Chapter 3 : Closure notices and closure orders

Closure notices and orders replace more specific closure powers relating to licensed and non-licensed premises causing, or are likely to cause, anti-social behaviour.

The Bill provides for a two stage closure procedure:

  • A closure notice:
    • may be issued by a police officer or local authority if they are satisfied that it is necessary to prevent nuisance or disorder, that the use of the premises has resulted or is likely to result in nuisance to the public or that there has been or is likely to be disorder in the vicinity of, and related to, the premises;
    • must follow consultation with any person/agency considered appropriate; the owner, landlord, licensee and any resident must also be informed;
    • can prohibit access to particular people at particular times but cannot prohibit access by the owner or people who habitually live on the premises;
    • lasts for up to 24 hours, capable of extension for a further 24 hours, during which an application may be made to the magistrate for a closure order.
  • A closure order:
    • may be made by the magistrate’s court if it is satisfied that a person has engaged or is likely to engage in disorder, anti-social or criminal behaviour on the premises, or the use of the premises is associated or likely to be associated with disorder or serious nuisance to the public; and the order is necessary to preventing such disorder or behaviour;
    • can prohibit access to anyone, including the landlord, owner or residents;
    • may last for up to three months and be renewed for a further three;
    • may be for short-term closure of up to 14 days.

Breach of either notice or order is a criminal offence. On conviction, a person is liable to an unlimited fine and/or up to three months imprisonment in breach of a notice and up to 6 months imprisonment in breach of an order. Organisations/businesses are subject to an unlimited fine. Obstructing an officer closing a property is also an offence, liable to a fine and/or up to three months imprisonment.

Part 5 : Housing – mandatory ground for possession

New provisions are made for possession on anti-social behaviour grounds.

Landlords will have an absolute ground for possession of a dwelling that is the subject of a secure tenancy (clause 86) or assured tenancy (clause 89). The new provisions, and way in which they operate, will be added to the discretionary grounds for possession available to courts in the Housing Act 1985. The court will be required to grant possession to the landlord if any one of five conditions relating to the anti-social behaviour of the tenant, household member or visitor to the property is met.

The Bill makes provision for the notice requirements on the landlord and provides secure tenants of local housing authorities and housing action trusts with a right to request a review of the decision to seek possession on the absolute ground.

Further amendments to the discretionary grounds will allow applications for possession where the antic-social behaviour has taken place outside the dwelling:

  • the secure or assured tenant or a person living in or visiting the tenant’s property has been guilty of conduct that is likely to cause nuisance or annoyance to the landlord, or a person employed in connection with the exercise of the landlord’s housing management functions;
  • the secure or assured tenant or a person living in or visiting the tenant’s property participates in riot related offences anywhere in the UK.

If proceedings on the new grounds of possession for anti-social behaviour are pending, the landlord has no duty to convey the freehold or grant a ‘right to buy’ lease, and can refuse to allow a tenant to take part in mutual exchange under the 1985 Act or a tenancy transfer under the Localism Act 2011.

Part 6: Local involvement and accountability

This group of provisions allow victims of low level anti-social behaviour and the public to have a say in out-of-court punishment and actions required of offenders.

Community remedy

The local policing body (PCC,  London Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime and the Common Council of the City of London) is required to prepare a list of reasonable and proportionate actions that might be carried out by a perpetrator of anti-social behaviour as a sanction without going to court. For example: paying compensation, making good any damage or dispute mediation.

This ‘community remedy document’ requires consultation with the local chief police officer, community representatives, the public and the victim(s), and final publication. If the victim has a view on the appropriate action, there is a presumption in favour of that prevailing (unless considered inappropriate).

This ‘community remedy’ is only available in cases where there is sufficient evidence to apply for an injunction to prevent nuisance and annoyance (under Part 1 the Bill) or to take other court proceedings when a conditional caution is not appropriate.

Criminal behaviour : conditional cautions.

Provision is made for conditional cautions (and youth conditional cautions) to be available for any offence unless explicitly excluded. (Domestic violence and hate crime are both excluded from this provision.)

Community trigger : review of response to complaints

The community trigger is a mechanism to allow victims of persistent anti-social behaviour to request relevant bodies – including local authorities, the police, health providers and social housing providers – to undertake a review of actions specific to a particular case. It is intended as a ‘backstop safety net’ for victims who consider that the response to their complaints has not been appropriate.

Any individual, community or business can apply and the relevant bodies must carry out a case review if the threshold is met. The Bill defines an optimal threshold – three complaints within six months – but the relevant bodies may chose to set a lower threshold and include factors such as the persistence of the behaviour, the potential for harm to the victim, and the adequacy of response.

The review would involve the relevant bodies sharing information, discussing the action taken and deciding whether and what further action could be taken. Recommendations may be made to a body carrying out public functions, including any of those involved in the review. That body must have regard to the recommendations made.

The Bill provides for the bodies within each local government area to make and publish arrangements for community trigger reviews. It also provides for joint arrangements to be made for larger areas. Schedule 4 provisions address actions to ensure the effectiveness of community trigger arrangements.

Part 7 : Dangerous Dogs

The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is extended so that the current offence of having a dog that is dangerously out of control applies to all places including private property. Enforcement officers, including local authority dog wardens, have extended rights to seize dogs that appear dangerously out of control from public and private places.

An exemption is available for ‘householder cases’, in which a dog is dangerously out of control when a trespasser, or someone believed to be a trespasser, enters or is inside another’s home or property that includes their home. Additional provisions apply to protect guide, hearing or other assistance dogs from attacks by other dogs.

In assessing whether a dog is dangerous and should be destroyed, the courts must consider the character of the owner or keeper along with the temperament of the dog, its past behaviour and any other relevant circumstances. A person’s character will also be considered when deciding their entitlement to keep a Section 1 dog.

Part 8 : Firearms

A new offence is introduced of possession of illegal firearms for sale or supply, including during import-/exportation. The maximum penalties for import-/exportation of illegal firearms is life imprisonment. British Transport Police will, like other police force officers, be able to carry firearms without requiring an individual certificate.

Part 9 : Forced Marriage

The breach of a Forced Marriage Protection Order will be a criminal offence with a  maximum penalty of 5 years’ imprisonment. A new offence of forced marriage is also created to catch a person who intentionally forces, through violence or otherwise, or deceives someone into going abroad in order to force them into marriage. The maximum penalty is seven years imprisonment.

Part 10 : Policing

Various measures are included in respect of policing, including:

  • conferring broad functions on the new College of Policing;
  • establishing a Police Remuneration Review Body to replace the current Police Negotiating Board;
  • additional powers for the Independent Police Complaints Commission;
  • amendments to the financial controls on and powers of chief officers of police;
  • amendments to the port and border security broadening powers governing examination, searches and detention.

Part 11 : Extradition

A number of amendments are made to the Extradition Act 2003 affecting hearings and appeals procedures, the position of asylum seekers and refugees, legal proceedings and the processes for extradition.

Part 12: Criminal Justice and Court Fees

A range of measures relate to: eligibility for compensation following a miscarriage of justice; low-value shoplifting; protection arrangements for people whose safety is at risk; imprisonment in default and remission of fines; and court fees.

Part 13: General

Various minor and consequential amendments are made to other enactments affected by the Bill, parliamentary procedures to be applied to the Bill’s orders and regulations, its territorial extent and commencement provisions.

Further information

The Bill is expected to have its second reading debate on 10 June including a full debate. Its progress through Parliament can be followed here. It is expected to receive Royal Assent by the end of the session, Spring 2014.

A range of supporting documents were published alongside the Bill and address specific issues:


This Bill has sizeable form. The Government has followed a doggedly determined and coherent path to arrive at the Bill as it is now. Proportionality will, no doubt, define its progress through Parliament and final shape.

The policy agenda is clear: to liberate local responses to anti-social behaviours from the over-micro-managerial detail of the existing tools. The new definition of anti-social behaviour casts a wider net: “conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance”. The measures themselves are released from definition by specific behaviour to definition by general impact of (any) behaviour: CPNs go far beyond ‘littering, dog fouling and graffiti’ to include all “unreasonable” behaviour “detrimental to the local community’s quality of life”; the flexibility of coverage in a PSPO makes it like a ‘good rule and government’ byelaw, but easier to make and enforce.

From a council point of view, the rationalisation of measures is helpful and logical. There is also considerable practical and legal advantage to be derived from the simpler, more generic approach to anti-social behaviours and their remedies.  But, the new liberties on offer to local authorities (and the other public bodies) almost inevitably come at a cost to others: individuals who may, or may just appear to be, involved in anti-social behaviour denied their homes; children named in court proceedings; a public whose use of the local environment is defined by regulation.

Proportion will dominate the arguments of principle in Parliament progress. And they may result in the kind of practical but significant changes as those made following the pre-legislative scrutiny: limiting the length of injunctions for under 18s; introducing a level of seniority to dispersal orders; setting a maximum threshold for the community trigger.

The real test of the Bill’s final form will be seen in local practice  where, arguably, context is all: best use of the new measures will only be possible in a context of sound local leadership, sensitive local working, strong inter-agency collaboration and a network of support services.

The LGiU will be following the Bill’s progress with regular updates in On Your Radar.

For more information about this, or any other LGiU member briefing, please contact Janet Sillett, Briefings Manager, on