ASBOs
Green Party press office
briefing
Updated July 2004
Contact Ruth Somerville, 020
7561 0282
“ There is a glaring hole in
the government’s strategy. Where are the real solutions that work at changing
anti-social behaviour? Where are the measures to make sure people don’t offend
in the first place?”
Adam
Sampson, Director, Shelter
“ASBOs set a very dangerous
precedent for the future: the government has introduced them as a way to
criminally convict people through the civil courts, for crimes they have not
committed.
Gareth
Lynbourne, Policy Director, Liberty
Context
1.1 ASBOs were first introduced in the Crime and
Disorder Act of 1998. They are designed to give local authorities a tool to
tackle persistent anti-social behaviour, without having to resort immediately
to a criminal prosecution. Recently the Anti-Social Behaviour Act (that is due
to come into force soon http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/en/2003en38.htm#end)
has extended these powers. ASBO's were NOT conceived particularly with youth
offenders in mind, although have been used against them because often the
criminal courts were seen to be failing to protect the public from this group.
Definition
1.2 "Section 1 of the 1998 Act defines an
anti-social manner as that which causes or is likely to cause harassment, alarm
and distress to one or more persons not of the same household as the person
against whom the order is made."
1.3 Anti-social behaviour has
a ‘very broad definition’ (home office website). People can be served an Anti
Social Behaviour Order for:
a. Harassment
of residents or passers-by
b. Verbal
abuse
c. Criminal
damage
d. Vandalism
e. Noise
nuisance
f.
Writing graffiti
g. Engaging
in threatening behaviour in large groups
h. Racial
abuse
i.
Smoking or drinking alcohol while under age
j.
Substance misuse
k. Joyriding
l.
Begging
m. Prostitution
n. Kerb-crawling
o. Throwing
missiles
p. Assault
q. Vehicle
crime
1.4 But of course the
definition of some of these can vary from authority to authority, ie noise
nuisance will be defined differently in a small country village than it will in
a busy city street.
1.5 Many of these activities
are already criminal offences. For example, people can be convicted for
racially aggravated harassment/public disorder under the Crime and Disorder Act
1998. People can also be fined for dropping litter, criminal damage etc. In all
these cases evidence must be gathered by the police and go through the criminal
courts, where the subject will tried and convicted on the basis of the evidence
‘beyond all reasonable doubt’.
2.1 ASBOs are an
unprecedented mixture of civil orders
and criminal enforcement.
2.2 The police or local
authorities apply for an ASBO against an individual on the grounds that they
are acting ‘in a manner likely to cause harassment or distress’, as opposed to
a concrete offence.
2.3 Authorities apply through
the magistrates courts. It generally takes 13 weeks and 3 hearings from date of
application to granting of the ASBO.
2.4 They usually take the form
of a curfew, or banning an individual from an area. Leaflets with details and
photo of the individual are sometimes distributed locally, urging residents to
report sightings of the individual to the police.
2.5 The ASBOs can become a
criminal offence when they are breached.
3.1 The possible penalties for
a breach are harsh. An unlimited fine and up to five years in prison if the
accused opts for a Crown Court trial. Also, if people breach their ASBO, they
can be criminally convicted for walking down a street!
3.2 Individuals can incur a
criminal conviction even though the order was obtained by information not
admitted in a criminal trial
3.3 Standards are subject to
the attitude of individual authorities. Manchester, for example, has granted
177 ASBOs while Wiltshire has granted only one. This leaves ASBOs open to abuse
where there is institutional racism /anti-youth biases within the authorities.
3.4 ASBO's have to be made for
a period of no less than two years. This is draconian and does not allow the
judge much discretion.
3.5 ASBOs are expensive -
£5000 each to grant – but not very effective. 36% end up being breached,
criminalising the subject. This will further alienate the subject and since 77%
of ASBOs are granted to youth, it gives a very bad start to life.
3.6 ASBOs are entirely
punitive. NACRO, children’s societies, and even the government’s own findings
suggest that crime is cured by prevention, not punishment. In the case of
neighbour-neighbour conflict, mediation is 80% successful. ASBOs do nothing to
address the causes of anti-social behaviour such as upset family life, run-down
neighbourhoods, and no availability of parks or resources to relieve boredom.
This is yet more legislation which is aimed at children who come from
disadvantaged communities where there is little to do.
3.7 ASBOS set a dangerous
precedent for youth’s privacy rights: in criminal courts, journalists are
usually prevented from disclosing anything that could lead to youth’s identity
being disclosed. In exceptional circumstances would a defendant under 18 be
named. The mandate to name and shame youth’s granted under ASBOS, penalises
both the individual and their entire family/friends by association. In some
cases, where an ASBO has ordered the subject not to associate with certain
people, those people (who have not been convicted) have been named in leaflets
distributed to thousands of households. This means young people already at odds
with their community, will be further vilified and excluded.
4.1 The government is looking
to expand legislation to target anti-social behaviour. It announced on 14 October 2003:
a. Nuisance
families will be targeted in four pilot areas.
b. Beggars
will similarly be targeted.
c. The
Home Office will set up "trailblazer" projects to deal with abandoned
vehicles in London and Liverpool.
d. A
national database will be set up to identify graffiti writers by their tag -
the nickname or pseudonym they use.
e. 12
areas in England and Wales will pilot new powers in the Anti-social Behaviour
Bill. Currently before parliament, it will force the owners of telephone boxes
and other street furniture to clean up graffiti.
4.2 The intention is to introduce legislation nationally.
But the plans are not far advanced and the government has committed only £22
million so far.
5.1 While
local authorities do need powers to deal with anti-social behaviour, they must
address the causes of such behaviour rather than concentrating on punitive
measures. The rhetoric of government does not help this, and merely distracts
from the failure to deal with deprived neighbourhoods and failure to provide
services and support for deprived adolescents.
5.2 the
fundamental problem with ASBOS are that they overturn the principle that the
law applies equally to everybody. Now each person can have their own
“invidualised crime” with much harsher penalties then the rest of the public.
there is absolutely no control over the actions that could become “criminal”,
it is entirely left to the magistrates, save for a vague assumption that the
European Convention on Human Rights will be respected. It is probably the single most serious attack
on individual civil liberties which this government has yet devised.
ENDS