The use of Anti Social Behaviour Orders across London

Report: 11
Date: 1 February 2007
By: Assistant Commissioner Territorial Policing on behalf of the Commissioner

Summary

This report outlines the use of Anti Social Behaviour Orders (ASBO) within the Metropolitan Police:

When used appropriately, ASBOs are a very powerful and effective tool. However, it is recognised that ASBOs, in themselves are not necessarily a demonstration of success and that there are many other interventions, such as Acceptable Behaviour Contracts (ABCs), that can be equally successful.

There are significant variations between London Boroughs in terms of the number of ASBOs being taken out and the level of support for multi-agency work to deal with both ASBOs and more general action to tackle ASB.

Insufficient use is being made of Individual Support Orders and the use of such orders should be increased in order to address the long term risk factors associated with anti-social behaviour.

Given the expansion of routes by which ASBOs can be obtained, including current proposals to give residents more power to take such orders out direct, it is essential to ensure systems are in place to monitor ASBOs more effectively.

The deterrent value of ASBOs is being weakened through variations in sentencing for ASBO breaches. The MPS is currently working with the London Criminal Justice Board to push for greater consistency in sentencing.

A. Recommendations

That the Committee notes the contents of this report.

B. Supporting information

The Development of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs)

1. The last 20 years have seen an increasing emphasis on the police role in tackling not just crime but also the more complex area of fear of crime and perceptions of safety. This development has involved increasing focus on disorder, anti-social behaviour (ASB) and “quality of life issues” – all of which have proved difficult to define but which have nevertheless occupied a powerful position in terms of community concern and also public satisfaction with the policing service that they receive.

2. A key challenge posed to those wishing to tackle anti-social behaviour is to identify mechanisms to deal with behaviour that may be criminal or sub-criminal in nature but which in itself, in isolation, is relatively minor. The impact of ASB tends to be through the impact of such incidents being repeated over a pro-longed period of time that, cumulatively, has a severity of impact upon local communities that far exceeds the seriousness of any individual act.

3. An additional challenge is that the range of behaviour that can become anti-social is enormous and very often dependant upon a very specific local context for its impact. Gathering evidence in such situations is often extremely problematic. Any offences inevitably attract, in isolation, a very low level of sanction even assuming that local victims are prepared to provide evidence in circumstances that could serve merely to increase their vulnerability.

4. As a consequence of the above, attention turned towards ensuring that those responsible for tackling ASB had legislative tools available that had a preventative function – i.e. that recognized the seriousness of such incidents placed prohibitions on specific actions or risk factors that generated the behaviour that had such a negative impact upon local communities.

5. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (CDA) contained a number of orders with a preventative function – including sex offender orders, child support orders, parenting orders and curfews/ dispersal orders. The Act also created a new community-based order, the “Anti-Social Behaviour Order” (ASBO).

6. An ASBO can be applied for by police or local authorities, in consultation with each other, against an individual or several individuals (i.e. a family or gang) whose behaviour was “anti-social” (i.e. it caused or was likely to cause alarm, distress or harassment to one or more people not of the same household as him/herself). It was expected that the orders would mainly be targeted at adults. Each ASBO contains a set of prohibitions intended and which should be sufficient to prevent local people from suffering further anti-social acts. It was intended that the order would be targeted at criminal or sub-criminal behaviour but not minor disputes or matters that could be dealt with effectively under existing legislation. [1]

7. Orders are issued for a minimum period of two years and can be issued for an indefinite period pending a further order. They can also be varied or discharged on application by either party, although they cannot be discharged in the first two years without the consent of both parties. In the case of young people, ASBOs should be reviewed each year.

8. ASBOs are not criminal penalties and are not intended to punish an offender. They have a preventative function and are intended to prohibit a person from continuing with specified anti-social acts or from entering defined locations in order to protect local people in those areas. This means that they are civil orders and are made in civil proceedings at a Magistrates Court.

9. The Civil Law Status has implications for the type of court proceedings at which applications can be heard and the type of evidence used to support an application. In particular, victims or witnesses who are frightened to give evidence for fear of reprisals can, providing rules are followed, give evidence but remain anonymous. Evidence that is not provided to a court first hand is called hearsay evidence. In addition, a police officer or other professional witness, such as a council official, health worker, teacher or doctor can give evidence in court on behalf of a vulnerable witness. [2]

10. Whilst ASBOs are a civil order, any breach of an ASBO is a criminal offence. Breach of any prohibition contained within an order is triable either way (i.e. at Magistrates or Crown Court) with a maximum penalty on indictment of five years in prison.

Developments since 1998

11. The powers to deal with anti-social behaviour were strengthened and extended by the Police Reform Act 2002, which introduced the power to make ASBOs on conviction in criminal proceedings, and the power to make interim ASBOs in the most urgent cases. Use of ASBOs was extended into the County Court system; all of these new provisions came into force on the 1 April 2003.

12. Individual Support Orders (ISOs) were created by section 322 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 for 10-17 year olds who were subject to ASBOs. ISOs are civil orders and became available on 1 May 2004. There is no formal procedure for applying for an ISO: the court can decide to impose one, or else the complainant might request one, in conjunction with an ASBO. The making of an Order is mandatory where the court considers that the criteria for doing so are met.

13. ISOs are intended to supplement the prohibitions of ASBOs with targeted positive requirements: for example, the order can require counselling for substance misuse or behavioural problems. Orders may last for up to six months and can require a young person to attend up to two sessions a week. Breach of the order without reasonable excuse is a criminal offence punishable by anything up to a level 3 fine (£1,000).

14. Since 1998, Acceptable Behaviour Contracts (ABCs) have emerged as an additional and significant preventative tool available to practitioners. First developed in Islington, Acceptable Behaviour Contracts (ABCs) are written voluntary agreements between individuals (usually young people between 10 and 18 but can apply to any age) and the police or a number of other agencies. They have no statutory basis, but were introduced originally as a way of ensuring that ASBOs would be imposed only as a last resort. Whilst they have no direct legal effect, a breach may be used as evidence in a subsequent application for an ASBO. However, prominent individuals can be signed up within a matter of days rather than the months it can take to apply for orders through the courts.

15. Types of Anti-Social Behaviour Order: there are currently four mechanisms by which ASBOs can be obtained:

• ASBOs in civil proceedings – these orders are granted through an application to an adult magistrates’ court sitting in its civil capacity.
• ASBOs in criminal proceedings – these are made on conviction in criminal proceedings. They are not part of the sentencing process, but are additional to the main disposal.
• Interim ASBO – before a full hearing, the court can make an interim order. This can impose the same impositions as a full ASBO and carry the same penalty for breach.
• Orders in the county court, where the principal proceedings involve some form of anti-social behaviour.

16. An application for an ASBO may only be made by a ‘relevant authority’, which includes: Local authorities; Police, including British Transport Police; Registered Social Landlords; Housing Action Trusts; County councils; Environmental Agency. It is intended to include Transport for London (TfL) in the near future. In addition, Section 142 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 has allowed Local Authorities in certain cases to contract out all or part of their ASBO functions to Arm Length Management Organisations (ALMOs) and Tenant Management Organisations from 9 January 2007

A National Perspective on the effectiveness of ASBOs:

17. Since 1997, several reports have considered the effectiveness of ASBOs as a tool to tackle ASB. These have included a report by the Select Committee on Home Office Affairs, a report by the Youth Justice Board (YJB) in November 2006 and a subsequent report by the National Audit Office in December 2006.

18. In making attempts to identify the effectiveness of ASBOs, both the Select Committee and the YJB noted that perceptions of the effectiveness of ASBOs tended to be split between those people who saw ASBOs as primarily a (potentially counter-productive) reactive punishment and those who saw it as a valid tool to prevent rather than punish ASB. [3] The YJB noted that YOT practitioners tended to think that ASBOs were over used and had little positive impact upon behaviour whilst police and local authority staff typically considered that ASBOs were being implemented in an appropriate way and that they were, for the most part, effective. At the root of this difference, according to the YJB, was a perception on the part of YOT practitioners that the function of ASBOs was to engage young people in changing their anti-social behaviour whilst police and local authority were more likely to see ASBOs as a response to community concerns.

19. Many professionals spoken to in preparation of the reports considered that effectiveness could be measured by the extent of compliance with the provisions of the orders. The Select Committee noted that, whilst 42% of ASBOs were breached “Even so, (this figure) compares well with other juvenile justice measures. An estimated 50% of Detention and Training Orders are breached. Referral orders are breached in 39% of cases. Intensive Supervision and Surveillance Programmes have a breach rate of 60%.” [4] The YJB study suggested that the breach figure for ASBOs was slightly higher (49%). However, as highlighted by those giving evidence to the Select Committee, where ASBOs are being used to target high risk offenders it is inevitable and unsurprising that some will re-offend. In these circumstances, breaches may represent failure on the part of an individual’s return to anti-social behaviour but represent a success in that the criminal justice system, on the part of the community, is now able, through the use of this Order, to take action against those who are generating misery in local communities.

20. A key feature of both reports is an emphasis on the need for strong partnership working to ensure that ASBOs are used in an effective fashion. Full involvement of all relevant agencies is essential in order to ensure that the full range of interventions are considered prior to an application for an ASBO and also to ensure that the prohibitions put in place within the ASBO are appropriate and will have the desired effect.

21. There is general agreement throughout the various reports that ASBOs can be an extremely effective tool but that they must be used in a targeted, appropriate way and that they should be initiated within a strong partnership setting.

Tackling ASB in London

22. The recent baseline assessment by Her Majesties Inspectorate of Constabularies (HMIC) rated the approach of the MPS to ASB as “Good (Improving)”. The assessment concluded that the approach of the service to tackling ASB is an inclusive one, in partnership with the many diverse communities and business sectors in the London area.

23. A commander from Territorial Policing (currently Commander Rod Jarman) holds strategic responsibility for reducing ASB. A small team within the central Safer Neighbourhoods Unit exists to provide policy and operational support to BCUs across London.

24. The MPS is part of a fully integrated process across London for tackling locally identified ASB. The structure for tackling ASB in partnership across London has recently been reviewed and work is now lead and co-ordinated by the Pan-London ASB and Respect Board, chaired by the Penny Thompson, the Chief Executive of Hackney.

25. All Boroughs have partnership strategies in place to tackle ASB – ensuring that the approach to ASB is joined up and focuses on prevention and diversion as well as enforcement. The majority of Boroughs in London have a multi-agency ASB team with an ASB Co-ordinator in place, a key part of whose role is to lead or assist in initiating ASBOs. The majority of Borough Command Units (BCUs) have a dedicated police officer operating as a key part of this team.

26. The advent of the Safer Neighbourhoods Programme has lead to an increasing focus on ASB and the operational action to tackle ASB is now, predominantly being led by Safer Neighbourhoods teams. For this reason, all Safer Neighbourhoods team members have either received or are scheduled to receive training on tackling ASB and in how to use the relevant legislation (i.e. ASBOs) and also how to use associated tactical options (i.e. ABCs) to achieve maximum impact.

27. Local officers, particularly Safer Neighbourhoods team officers, are now engaging with partners such as local housing officers on their wards and taking part in tenancy interviews which can form the basis of ABC interviews following a breach of tenancy. These interviews and the ABCs that can result from them can be used for applications for injunctions and ASBOs, in an incremental way should the behaviour persist. This is a good example of a ‘bottom-up’ approach that is occurring locally on boroughs across London and which at the same time is significantly improving partnership working and information sharing.

28. Collection of local data has been reinforced through use of a Nuisance Diary that has been developed by the MPS ASB team. Where local ASB problems become apparent, residents, the business community and others affected by the ASB are encouraged by the local ASB team to complete the booklets that can be used in evidence for such action as ASBOs, and injunctions. The use of these booklets has been included in ASB training across the MPS by the central ASB team. Information about all local ASB issues is available via the ASB co-ordinator

29. The MPS ASB team organised multi-agency ASBO training across London with the CPS and other key agencies for 1,500 partners during 2005. The Home Office praised this ASBO training and the material from the training has been distributed nationally, including in Northern Ireland. The MPS also host eight-weekly ASB forums to deliver recent case law, procedure and advice. The MPS ASB forum has a wide membership, which encompasses all sections of the community together with business and sporting organisations, and this forum is highly active in encouraging all forms of partnership working.

30. The MPS has greatly improved its working relationship with the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and in particular the ASBO Crown Prosecutor for London who continues to establish ASBO expertise in each of the CPS Area offices in London. This has led to an increase in the number of applications for Post-Conviction ASBOs in London

London ASBO statistics

(See Appendix 1 for complete Tables)

31. Due to the various routes through which ASBOs can be obtained, the only definitive statistics currently available are those obtained through the collation of information from courts. Through the information supplied to the Home Office by courts, it has been established that between April 1999 and December 2005 there have been 1172 ASBOs obtained across the capital. During this period, London courts have refused 40 ASBO applications

32. The variation in use of ASBOs during this period has been considerable. The most ASBOs were taken out by Camden (372), Tower Hamlets (175), Westminster (99) and Hillingdon (75). The fewest ASBOs were taken out by Kingston upon Thames (20), Bromley (21), Kensington and Chelsea (23) and Enfield (23).

33. There is no central collection of the number of ASBOs obtained for 2006 at present although MPS figures show that in 2006 there were 653 breaches of ASBOs. Breach of an ASBO is a criminal offence and thus recorded on the Crime Reporting Information System (CRIS) from where this data is obtained. The number of Breaches varied considerably between Boroughs, with 14 Boroughs recording no breaches but with Camden reporting 173, Westminster 137, Hillingdon 75 and Brent 41.

34. Whilst the above figures rely on information being collected by London courts, data from Safer Neighbourhoods teams provides a more up to date indication as to the levels of activity. Latest figures (April – December 2006) suggests that Safer Neighbourhoods teams have:

• Made 5413 home visits to discuss ASB with offenders and the parents of offenders
• Taken out 2097 ABCs and,
• Taken out 604 ASBOs.

35. This information suggests that 2006 has seen a significant increase in the number of ASBOs being taken out across London. However, this increase should be seen in the context of increasing activity across all BCUs to tackle ASB – hence, whilst the number of ASBOs has increased, so has the level of activity in terms of other interventions to modify behaviour by offenders (home visits and ABCs).

36. It is again true that there remains considerable differences in the way that individual Boroughs are making use of ASBOs. In 2006, Tower Hamlets and Camden remained strong proponents (taking out 119 and 81 ASBOs respectively). However, a number of Boroughs have recorded a very low number - Kingston upon Thames (1), Enfield (2), Haringey (5), Merton and Bexley (6).

Current challenges

37. As illustrated by the statistics above, one of the principle challenges faced by the MPS is that different Boroughs clearly have very different approaches to the use of ASBOs. It should be stressed that the raw number of ASBOs taken out by a BCU is neither necessarily good nor bad. The aim of strategies to tackle ASB are to reduce the concerns and fears of the community and, so long as this is being achieved, Boroughs are free to use whatever tactical or strategic options that they wish. However, some concerns could and have emerged in Boroughs where these outcomes are not being achieved but within which there is a reluctance by the partnership to utilise ASBOs as a tactical option.

38. The different approaches of Boroughs to ASBOs reflects similar variations in investment in the whole area of ASB. There is significant variation between boroughs in the make-up of their ASB Teams and the importance given to tackling ASB. This will often be affected by restrictions in funding, commitments by partners or political perspective.

39. There are no current figures as to the number of Individual Support Orders (ISOs) that are being put in place to take positive steps to divert offenders away from ASB. However, information gathered from visits to Boroughs by the central SN team suggests that very few such orders are being put in place. This is a missed opportunity to address factors that will drive long term offending. The Central SN team are currently engaged in ensuring that such orders have far greater visibility and prominence at Borough level.

40. Given the increase in use of such Orders and the expansion of routes by which ASBOs can be obtained, including recent proposals to give residents increased powers to take out ASBOs it has become increasingly difficult to monitor the number and quality of ASBOs across London or even on individual Boroughs. Strong partnership working depends on the ability to have consistent and good quality information on who is subject to an ASBO at Borough level. This is particularly the case when the partnership is seeking to introduce additional positive measures through ISOs to assist in diverting offenders from further offending. There is an urgent need to develop a mechanism to track ASBOs more effectively and, given that any ASBO breach is criminal offence, the central MPS Safer Neighbourhoods team is currently developing options to do this.

41. Whilst there is general agreement that ASBOs are part of a wide range of interventions that should be used to modify behaviour and to prevent ASB from affecting local communities, nevertheless it should be recognised that the preventative function of an ASBO lies in the deterrent power of the consequences of a breach. With this in mind, a critical challenge to the effectiveness of ASBOs in London is the wide variation in sentencing for Breaches. In a series of recent examples, a succession of breaches have been detected and brought to court only for offenders to be immediately released – both reducing the credibility of ASBOs and damaging the confidence of local communities in police and partners who are working to assist them. Work is currently being conducted within the London Criminal Justice Board (LCJB) to address this issue.

Conclusion

42. Key messages

• When used appropriately, ASBOs are a very powerful and effective tool.
• ASBOs in themselves are not necessarily a demonstration of success. There are many other interventions, such as ABCs, that can be equally successful
• There are significant variations between London Boroughs in terms of the number of ASBOs being taken out and the level of support for multi-agency work to deal with both ASBOs and more general action to tackle ASB.
• Insufficient use is being made of Individual Support Orders and the use of such orders should be increased in order to address the long term risk factors associated with anti-social behaviour.
• Given the expansion of routes by which ASBOs can be obtained, including current proposals to give residents more power to take such orders out direct, it is essential to ensure systems are in place to monitor ASBOs more effectively.
• Through the London Criminal Justice Board, the MPS is pushing for consistency of sentencing when breaches occur.

C. Race and equality impact

In consideration of the Race and Equality Impact Assessment of this work, it has been acknowledged that data capture systems are currently insufficiently robust to monitor these issues in a reliable and timely manner. This will be dealt with through consideration of the work, highlighted above, to improve the consistency and quality of data relating to ASBOs.

D. Financial implications

Current activity is undertaken as part of mainstream business and has no additional resource requirements. Additional work generated by ongoing research will be dealt with within existing budgets or, if necessary, will be supported by separate resource bids.

E. Background papers

• Appendix 1: London ASBO Statistics (1999-2006)

F. Contact details

Report author: Ch Supt Stephen Bloomfield

For more information contact:

MPA general: 020 7202 0202
Media enquiries: 020 7202 0217/18

List of abbreviations

ASB

Antisocial Behaviour

CDA

Crime and Disorder Act

ASBO

Antisocial behaviour order

ISO

Individual Support Orders

ABC 

Acceptable Behaviour Contracts

YJB

Youth Justice Board

YOT

Youth Offending Team

HMIC

Her Majesties Inspectorate of Constabularies

CRIS

Crime Reporting Information System

Appendix 1: London ASBO Statistics (1999-2006)

Number of ASBOs obtained in London in 2006 (supplied by Boroughs)

Number of Arrests for Breach of an ASBO in London in 2006 (CRIS data)

NB. The ASBO itself may have been obtained at anytime between 1999 and 2006 

 Total number of ASBOs obtained in London between 1999 and Dec 2005 (Home Office)

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback