Anti-social behaviour order
[3][4][5] They were designed to address behaviours like intimidation, drunkenness, and violence by individuals and families, using civil orders rather than criminal sanctions.
In a press release of 28 October 2004, Tony Blair and David Blunkett announced further measures to extend the use and definition of ASBOs.
[10] The remit included: The press release concluded by remarking: In the past year, around 100,000 cases of anti-social behaviour have been dealt with.
[12] The 2010 coalition government expressed its intention to replace ASBOs, citing the reasons that "breach rates are high, and the number issued has been steadily declining since 2005.
"[13] In July 2010, Home Secretary Theresa May announced her intention to reform anti-social behaviour measures for England and Wales, with the abolition of ASBOs in due course in favour of alternative "community-based" social control policies.
[15] In May 2013, an Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill was introduced into the House of Commons,[16][17] including a provision to create "injunctions to prevent nuisance and annoyance", replacing ASBOs in England and Wales.
[13] The bill was criticised for the broad and undefined scope of "nuisance and annoyance",[18] and was rejected by the House of Lords in January 2014.
[25] Pursuant to section 1(1) Civil Evidence Act 1995, an applicant (and a defendant) had the right to rely on witness statements without calling the makers of those statements—known as hearsay.
Nevertheless, it was open to them, in accordance with the Civil Evidence Act, to submit that the court should place little or no weight[27] upon material that had not been tested by way of cross examination.
The Court of Appeal has stated that the high standard of proof is difficult to meet if the entirety of the case, or the majority of it, is based upon hearsay evidence.
Subsequent legislation compelled magistrates to make a Parenting Order, where a person under the age of 16 breached their ASBO.
They were criticised as being "without strong and principled justification",[53] a distraction from the failure of the government's law and order policies,[54] a "recipe for institutionalised vigilantism",[55] and an "emblem of punitive populism".
[57] A MORI opinion poll published on 9 June 2005 found that 82% of the British public were in favour of ASBOs; however, only 39% believed they were effective in their current form.
[58] A 2012 survey by Angus Reid Public Opinion showed that only 8% of Britons believed ASBOs had been successful in curbing anti-social behaviour in the UK.
[62] A 2005 memorandum submitted by the National Association of Probation Officers (NAPO) asserted that "there is ample evidence of the issuing of ASBOs by the courts being inconsistent and almost a geographical lottery.
In NAPO's view, the time is right for a fundamental review of the use and appropriateness of Anti-social Behaviour Orders by the Home Office.
"[23] In 2002, Home Office data stated that in the cases where information was available, there was a high proportion where some mitigating factor appeared to have contributed to their behaviour.
[64] In 2005, a survey of Youth Offending Teams by the British Institute for Brain Injured Children showed that 38% of ASBOs went to young people with significant mental disorders.
[citation needed] Problems included: clinical depression, suicidal tendencies, autism, psychosis, personality disorders, learning disabilities, and ADHD; this raised the question of whether young people with these illnesses should be held to a lower standard of behaviour than others.
Indeed, Lord Steyn stated: The inquiry under section 1(1)(b), namely that such an order is necessary to protect persons from further anti-social acts by him, does not involve a standard of proof: it is an exercise of judgment or evaluation.According to government evaluations (e.g. Housing Research Summary No.
HRS 230 called for a review of both ASBO policy and investigation procedures in order to make the whole process fairer.
[68] Nacro, the biggest criminal justice-related charity in England and Wales, published two reports: the first claimed that ASBOs were a failure, due to being costly and slow to obtain;[69] and the second criticised their use by the courts, with assertions that they were being used too hastily, before alternatives had been tried.
