No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Crime and anti-social behaviour in England and Wales: an empirical evaluation of the ASBO's successor
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 June 2020
Abstract
This paper presents the findings of an empirical study conducted with local enforcement agents in two areas in England regarding the implementation of the anti-social behaviour injunction which succeeded the anti-social behaviour order (ASBO). These findings shed light on the procedure followed by local enforcement agents when dealing with an incident of anti-social behaviour. The data presented suggests that despite the recent legislative amendments, much of the regulation of anti-social behaviour still takes place in the ‘shadows’ with local enforcement agents utilising a range of informal interventions before applying to court for the issue of an injunction. Moreover, it is argued that despite the repeal and replacement of the ASBO by what appears to be a purely civil measure, many of the criticisms raised about the order and its potential misuse remain largely unaddressed.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press
Footnotes
†
The author would like to thank all of those who participated in the empirical study. The author is also grateful to Heather Keating, Colin King, Tanya Palmer, Tarik Kochi, Mark Walters and the two anonymous reviewers for their comments and recommendations on an earlier version of this paper.
References
1 Crime and Disorder Act 1998, s 1 and s 1C respectively.
2 Brown, K ‘Punitive reform and the cultural life of punishment: moving from the ASBO to its successors’ (2020) 22(1) Punishment & Society 91CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
3 Home Office More Effective Responses to Anti-Social Behaviour (February 2011) p 5; L Koffman ‘The use of anti-social behaviour orders: an empirical study of a new deal for communities area’ (2006) Criminal Law Review 605.
4 H Porter and T Blair ‘Britain's liberties: the great debate’ (23 April 2006) available at https:/www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/apr/23/humanrights.constitution; S Macdonald ‘The principle of composite sentencing: Its centrality to, and implications for, the ASBO’ (2006) Criminal Law Review 792.
5 Macdonald, S ‘A suicidal woman, roaming pigs and a noisy trampolinist: refining the ASBO's definition of “anti-social behaviour”’ (2006) 69 Modern Law Review 185 at 185–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ashworth, A and Zedner, L ‘Preventive orders: a problem of undercriminalisation?’ in Duff, A et al. (eds) The Boundaries of the Criminal Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010) pp 66–67Google Scholar.
6 Chakraborti, S and Russell, J ‘ASBOmania’ in Squires, P (ed) ASBONATION: The Criminalisation of Nuisance (Bristol: Policy Press, 2008) p 308Google Scholar; Simester, A and Hirsch, A von ‘Regulating offensive conduct through two-step prohibitions’ in von Hirsch, A and Simester, A (eds) Incivilities: Regulating Offensive Behaviour (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2006) p 175Google Scholar.
7 Labour Party A Quiet Life: Tough Action on Criminal Neighbours (1995).
8 Simester and von Hirsch, above n 6, p 175. See also Figure 1.
9 P Squires ‘Introduction: why “anti-social behaviour”? Debating ASBOs’ in Squires, above n 6, p 5.
10 Brown, above n 2, at 91; Home Office and Ministry of Justice ‘Statistical notice: Anti-Social Behaviour Order (ASBO) statistics – England and Wales 2013’ (18 September 2014) available at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/355103/anti-social-behaviour-order-statistical-notice-2013.pdf.
11 A Duff and S Marshall ‘How offensive can you get?’ in von Hirsch and Simester (eds), above n 6, p 80; Ashworth, A et al. ‘Neighbouring on the oppressive: the government's “anti-social behaviour order” proposals’ (1998) 16 Criminal Justice 9Google Scholar; E Burney ‘The ASBO and the shift to punishment’ in Squires, above n 6, pp 143–145.
12 Home Office Putting Victims First: More Effective Responses to Anti-Social Behaviour (May 2012) pp 3–4.
13 This was a concern raised by many human rights campaigners and academics when the Conservative-Lib Dem Coalition Government revealed its plans to repeal and replace the ASBO with what was originally referred to as the Injunction to Prevent Nuisance and Annoyance. See Liberty Liberty's Briefing on the Draft Anti-Social Behaviour Bill (February 2013); Brown, K ‘Replacing the ASBO with the injunction to prevent nuisance and annoyance: a plea for legislative scrutiny and amendment’ (2013) 8 Criminal Law Review 623Google Scholar.
14 Local enforcement agents include anti-social behaviour officers working for the police (including Police Community Support Officers), local authorities and housing associations.
15 See for example Ashworth and Zedner, above n 5.
16 See Crawford, A et al. ‘“It ain't (just) what you do, it's (also) the way that you do it”: the role of procedural justice in the implementation of anti-social behaviour interventions with young people’ (2017) 23 European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research 9CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Donoghue, JAnti-Social Behaviour Orders: A Culture of Control? (Hampshire: Palgrave, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
17 See for example Porter and Blair, above n 4.
18 Ashworth et al, above n 11, at 9.
19 See Figure 1.
20 P Ramsay ‘What is anti-social behaviour?’ (2004) Criminal Law Review 921.
21 S Demetriou ‘From the ASBO to the injunction: a qualitative review of the anti-social behaviour legislation post-2014’ (2019) Public Law 346.
22 M James and G Pearson ‘30 years of hurt: the evolution of civil preventive orders, hybrid law, and the emergence of the super-football banning order’ (2018) Public Law 44.
23 R (on the application of McCann) v Manchester Crown Court [2002] UKHL 39 para 82.
24 Pearson, G ‘Hybrid law and human rights – banning and behaviour orders in the appeal courts’ (2006) 27 Liverpool Law Review 129–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
25 The same argument applied to the CrASBO. See Duff and Marshall, above n 11, p 80.
26 Simester and von Hirsch, above n 6, p 179.
27 As far as the CrASBO's successor (ie the Criminal Behaviour Order) is concerned, it is worth noting that this ‘retain[ed] most of the CrASBO's key features’. See Demetriou, above n 21, at 347–348.
28 Brown, above n 2, at 104.
29 As Brown points out, it is ‘debatable’ whether the imposition of this lower threshold will have any significant effect for those agencies applying for the issue of an injunction since ‘statistics have shown courts granting 98 per cent of ASBO applications’. See Brown, above n 13, at 623.
30 Crime and Disorder Act 1998, s 1(1)(b).
31 Whilst ASBOs lasted for a minimum period of two years, under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 there are no minimum or maximum requirements with regard to the duration of the injunction when the respondent is an adult. In the case of a minor, an injunction can last no longer than 12 months. See the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, s 1(3) and the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, s 1(6) respectively.
32 For those between the age of 14 and 17, breach of the injunction issued against them is dealt with in the youth court and can result in the imposition of a detention order. See Home Office Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014: Reform of Anti-Social Behaviour Powers – Statutory Guidance for Frontline Professionals (August 2019) p 26.
33 Crawford et al, above n 16, at 12.
34 ABCs are informal agreements/contracts signed between local enforcement agents and perpetrators as a means of nipping ‘the problem behaviour in the bud before it escalates’. As part of these informal contracts, perpetrators might agree to refrain from doing certain things, such as visiting certain parts of the town, and/or engage with certain service providers, such as attending drug-rehabilitation treatment. Although ‘there are no formal sanctions associated with breaching’ an agreement of this kind, this can clearly be used as evidence in court in order to obtain an injunction against the perpetrator. See Home Office, above n 32, pp 18–19.
35 Crawford et al, above n 16, at 19.
36 Simester and von Hirsch, above n 6, p 175.
37 Engel v Netherlands (1979–1980) 1 EHRR 647 paras 81–82.
38 For a critique of the anti-subversion doctrine see Zedner, L ‘Penal subversions: when is a punishment not punishment, who decides and on what grounds?’ (2016) 20(1) Theoretical Criminology 3CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
39 Crime and Disorder Act 1998, s 1.
40 Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, s 2(1).
41 This can be partly attributed to the fact that this new injunction was the result of the consolidation of a number of tools and powers into a ‘single multi-purpose’ instrument. See House of Commons Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014: Explanatory Notes (October 2013) para 13; Demetriou, above n 21, at 347.
42 Office for National Statistics Experiences of Anti-social Behaviour by Police Force Area, English Regions and Wales, Year Ending December 2013 CSEW (July 2014).
43 A three-part unique reference code was allocated to each research participant. The first part of this unique code represents a randomly allocated number to each interviewee. The second part reflects the interviewee's occupational background, ie ‘LP’ for local practitioners and ‘PO’ for police officers (including Police Community Support Officers). The final part of this unique identification code refers to the site where the research participant was working at the time the interview was conducted.
44 Although fewer interviews were conducted in Site B, it is important to note that data saturation was achieved.
45 The data presented in this paper do not cover the procedure followed by local enforcement agents after an injunction was breached.
46 O'Malley, P ‘Crime and risk’ in Carlen, P and Leandro, A (eds) Alternative Criminologies (Oxford: Routledge, 2017) p 223Google Scholar; Garland, DThe Culture of Control: Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2001) p 12CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
47 Feeley, M and Simon, J ‘The new penology: notes on the emerging strategy of corrections and its implications’ (1992) 30 Criminology 449CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
48 Zedner, LSecurity (Oxford: Routledge, 2007) pp 1–2Google Scholar.
49 Garland, above n 46, p 175.
50 As far as England and Wales is concerned, risk assessment tools and multi-agency collaborations were first established as a means of dealing with domestic violence. As explained by Hoyle, the use of risk assessment tools can assist the various criminal justice agencies to identify ‘those at risk of victimisation’ at an early stage and therefore prevent domestic violence. This is mainly due to the fact that the relevant agencies rely on ‘[s]tructured decision approaches, using risk indices, [that] are superior to unstructured approaches because they promise broader and more accurate coverage of issues in assessing risk’. See Hoyle, C, ‘Will she be safe? A critical analysis of risk assessment in domestic violence cases’ (2008) 30(3) Children and Youth Services Review 328–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
51 Ansbro, M ‘The nuts and bolts of risk assessment: when the clinical and actuarial conflict’ (2010) 49(3) The Howard League 252CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hannah-Moffat, K ‘Punishment and risk’ in Simon, J and Sparks, R (eds) The Sage Handbook of Punishment and Society (London: Sage, 2013) p 2Google Scholar.
52 McCulloch, J and Wilson, DPre-Crime: Pre-emption, Precaution and the Future (Oxford: Routledge, 2016) pp 5–6Google Scholar.
53 McCafferty, J ‘Professional discretion and the predictive validity of a juvenile risk assessment instrument: exploring the overlooked principle of effective correctional classification’ (2017) 15(2) Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 103–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
54 O'Malley, above n 46.
55 See section 1 above.
56 Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, s 1(3).
57 O'Malley, above n 46.
58 Ansbro, above n 51, at 259.
59 It should be noted, though, that this study examined the implementation of the injunction from a practitioner's perspective. Those against whom an injunction was imposed might in fact feel that their behaviour did not cause any of the negative experiences that fall within the ambit of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, Part 1 and that therefore the injunction was used pre-emptively.
60 There is also evidence to suggest that on many occasions local enforcement agents take into consideration various factors when determining whether someone's behaviour should be regarded as anti-social, many of which tend to narrow the scope of the law. See Demetriou, above n 21, at 351–356.
61 For more on the case of Fiona Pilkington see Independent Police Complaints Commission IPCC Report into the Contact between Fiona Pilkington and Leicester Constabulary 2004–2007 (2009).
62 Home Office, above n 32, p 23.
63 See also Brown, K ‘The developing habitus of the anti-social behaviour practitioner: from expansion in years of plenty to surviving the age of austerity’ (2013) 40(3) Journal of Law and Society 375 at 398CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
64 Garland, above n 46, p 124.
65 Ibid, p 124.
66 Flint, J ‘Social housing agencies and the governance of anti-social behaviour’ (2002) 17(4) Housing Studies 622CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Crawford, A ‘Governing through anti-social behaviour’ (2009) 49 British Journal of Criminology 822CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
67 Mythen, GUnderstanding the Risk Society (Hampshire: Macmillan, 2014) pp 53–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bullock, K and Fielding, N ‘Community crime prevention’ in Tilley, N and Sidebottom, A (eds) Handbook of Crime Prevention and Community Safety (Oxford: Routledge, 2017) p 89Google Scholar.
68 O'Malley, P and Palmer, D ‘Post-Keynesian policing’ (1996) 25(2) Economy and Society 140Google Scholar.
69 Brown, above n 63, at 388–389.
70 Crawford et al, above n 16, at 15.
71 Donoghue, above n 16, pp 99–100.
72 Demetriou, above n 21, at 355.
73 Garland, D, ‘The limits of the sovereign state’ (1996) 36(4) British Journal of Criminology 454CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
74 Bullock and Fielding, above n 67, p 90.
75 Koffman, above n 3, at 601.
76 Lewis, S et al. ‘Nipping crime in the bud? The use of anti-social behaviour interventions with young people in England and Wales’ (2017) 57 British Journal of Criminology 1238Google Scholar.
77 Ibid, at 1238–1239.
78 Ibid, at 1238.
79 Ayres, I and Braithwaite, JResponsive Regulation: Transcending the Deregulation Debate (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992) pp 4–7Google Scholar.
80 Ibid, ch 2.
81 Braithwaite, J ‘The essence of responsive regulation’ (2011) 44 University of British Columbia Law Review 482Google Scholar.
82 Ibid, at 486.
83 Walters, MHate Crime and Restorative Justice: Exploring Causes, Repairing Harms (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014) p 239CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
84 Of course, further research is needed on the use of restorative justice for anti-social behaviour, and its impact on the procedural and distributive justice of such cases.
85 Koffman, above n 3, at 601; Lewis et al, above n 76, at 1238–1239.
86 Matthews, R et al. Assessing the Use and Impact of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (Bristol: Policy Press, 2007) p 35Google Scholar.
87 For a comprehensive analysis of the normative challenges posed by paternalistic interventions see Husak, D ‘Paternalism’ in Marmor, A (ed) The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Law (New York: Routledge, 2012)Google Scholar.
88 Brown, above n 2, at 96.
89 Squires, P and Stephen, D ‘Rethinking ASBOs’ (2005) 25 Critical Social Policy 523CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
90 [2004] EWHC 2229 (Admin) paras 40–42.
91 Home Office, above n 32, p 31.
92 Duff and Marshall, above n 11, p 80; Brown, above n 2, at 104.
93 O'Malley, P, Crime and Risk (London: Sage, 2010) ch 1Google Scholar; Gray, P ‘The political economy of risk and the new governance of youth crime’ (2009) 11(4) Punishment & Society 445–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
94 Brown, above n 2, at 92.
95 Home Office, above n 12, p 3.
96 Office for National Statistics Crime in England and Wales: Year ending December 2018 (April 2019) table F8.
97 Demetriou, above n 21, at 352–353.
98 Donoghue, J ‘Reflections on risk, anti-social behaviour and vulnerable/repeat victims’ (2013) 53 British Journal of Criminology 814CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
99 Ibid, at 815.
100 Squires and Stephen, above n 89, at 523.