Examination of Witnesses (Questions 400-414)
18 JANUARY 2005
MR CHRIS
FOX, MR
PETER LEWIS,
COUNCILLOR CHRIS
CLARK, MR
STUART DOUGLASS,
CINDY BARNETT
AND MR
JOHN FASSENFELT
Q400 Mrs Dean: So you
do not agree with several organisations who have argued that the
terms of ASBOs are often inappropriate?
Mr Lewis: We are getting more
used to them but it is our firm guidance that for each prohibition
that we seek there ought to be a clear evidence base of anti-social
behaviour that justifies that prohibition, and we also want to
make sure that they are really clear. We have heard in the Press
and anecdotally ourselves of some conditions that seem strange,
but our advice and the training that we are rolling out to everybody
is that there must be clear prohibitions linked to distinct anti-social
behaviour, and if we do that then I think we will be heading in
the right direction.
Q401 Mrs Dean: Do you
think it is right that ASBOs have to last a minimum of two years?
Mr Lewis: We have discussed this,
particularly when we are looking for Orders in respect of young
people and we are asking, say, for a curfew, and two years is
rather a long period of time. However, there are a number of factors
we think important. One is that on the whole we are only seeking
these orders when the community has had a really difficult time
and they want to see that there is a substantial order for a decent
period of time, so they can have some respite from this. Also,
if it is a young person and they do mend their ways then they
can apply to vary the order. So we think that two years is about
right, particularly so that we can say to communities, "If
we have responded to your problem we have a decent order for a
decent length of time."
Q402 Mrs Dean: Can you
tell us how often people are prosecuted for a breach of the ASBO?
Mr Lewis: As the figures are showing
it is about one-third of the orders lead to breaches. As you know,
we have just over 3,000 orders as of this summer and about one-third
of those, about 1,000 cases. That is over a fair period of time
because we have had these orders since 1999. So about 1,000 times
we have had to breach these orders.
Q403 Mrs Dean: 1,000 are
breached and in every case of a breach are people always prosecuted
for that breach?
Mr Lewis: Yes. We look at each
case—we think this is important—on its merits and
we do make sure that they have breached the order, and there may
be the odd, extremely unusual case where we do not prosecute.
But we take the view that the court has imposed an order, they
have not done that lightly and if somebody breaches it then that
is a serious matter and they ought to be back before the court.
Q404 Mrs Dean: Do any
of the other members have comments to make?
Mr Fassenfelt: Could I make a
comment about the two-year minimum period? I am a Youth Court
magistrate and my view is that it is quite draconian to put a
youngster on for two years minimum. Two years in a 14 year old's
life has considerably more impact than on a 25-year old adult.
I think that magistrates should be given the discretion to have
a period much lower than that.
Q405 David Winnick: Like
what, for example?
Mr Fassenfelt: I think we should
start at six months.
Ms Barnett: Could I stress that
we are not saying by that that we think all two-year or longer
orders are incorrect, it is purely the fact of the discretion,
particularly when you are dealing with very young children in
this particular case.
Q406 David Winnick: Excuse
me, Mrs Dean. But if they were to be less than two years do you
believe that the breaching would be less, Mr Lewis?
Mr Lewis: We have certainly had
cases where people have asked for curfew orders for five years
for a young person and that is like house arrest, it is far too
long, and it is asking for somebody to be a problem. I think we
have to have this basis that we should only be applying for ASBOs
if it is a serious matter and there have been real concerns from
a community. Therefore, if we are applying for the right orders
it should be a serious matter for which you are asking and we
should not be applying for these lightly. As I say, if people
do reform they can ask to vary the orders, they can come back
if they feel that a new leaf has been turned over and they have
mended their ways. We know that there is an issue and we are alive
to it, which is why we think that we should only apply for this
if it is a serious matter.
Q407 Mrs Dean: Ms Barnett,
following that up, do you feel that magistrates would be more
inclined to agree to an Anti-social Behaviour Order for young
people if they could give one for six months or 12 months rather
than two years?
Ms Barnett: I think there is only
a very low number where they have been refused—I think something
like 42 out of the over 3,000. I am not sure that that would be
an issue. I think it might be less soul searching in a particular
case if you did not feel that you had to do it for two years and
that seemed an immensely long time. If I could just add one comment,
it is not only the length, it is also, as has been hinted at by
Mr Lewis, the number and type of conditions, and if they are either
applied for or if a Bench agrees to that and decides on them and
imposes them and they are disproportionate then of course there
is going to be a much higher chance of breach. So it is incredibly
important that we do get it right in the first place.
Mr Fox: I think we need to reinforce
the fact that it is a very serious circumstance and we have to
remember the people who have been affected by the behaviour in
the first place. They need to feel confident that they are getting
support from the criminal justice system. Two years may seem a
long time; lots of other people look at that and make judgements
about their own safety or, indeed, "whether I will behave
like that". So I personally think that as long as we pick
the serious events then two years is reasonable.
Q408 Mrs Dean: Mr Clark,
did you want to add anything?
Councillor Clark: Two quick points.
Firstly, we are keen to make sure that it is recognised that anti-social
behaviour and orders are not just about young people. Secondly,
that we think that the forthcoming Youth Green Paper will perhaps
give an opportunity to look at this again in respect of a joined-up
approach to young people.
Mr Douglass: Also the point on
the timing. I think in adult cases or serious cases the two years
does seem about right. If somebody goes in for a custodial sentence
and they get six months or three months you know that they are
coming back and there is something there to protect the community
and a basis to work from. The experience of acceptable behaviour
contracts or agreements, however, does seem to suggest that you
want to set a goal with young people and perhaps review it after
three months, four months, five months and so on, and it seems
to work. You set some boundaries but you have to give them a realistic
timescale, and I think the point made about the two years being
a bit long maybe worth further exploration. But in serious cases—and
you would expect them to be serious cases if you are going for
an ASBO in a juvenile—then get it on a case by case basis.
Q409 Mrs Dean: One last
question, and that is related to alcohol related disorder. It
is probably for Mr Fox and Mr Lewis. It has now become much rarer
to prosecute drunken offences—I think about one-third compared
to several years ago. Could you say why this is?
Mr Lewis: I think there is greater
use of the penalty provisions now than there was, and certainly
some of the figures I have seen, for the traditional offences
that I used to prosecute, which is drunk and disorderly and found
drunk in the highway, those tend to be the offences that are now
dealt with by a Fixed Penalty Notice, which are dealt with very
quickly. There is a financial implication, which was usually the
penalty for those offences, unless they were very unusual. So
I think it is the switch to more penalty disorder notices. I do
not know if Mr Fox agrees?
Mr Fox: I think that is the up
to date answer. I also think it was a trend before that because
the number of people that were behaving in ways they should not
was such that the small number of police officers could only deal
with them by arrest which took them off the street for some time
into the charge rooms, thereby weakening your presence on the
street. So there was a spiral downwards in terms of enforcement.
The Fixed Penalty seems to have turned that around in that it
is a much quicker process, and particularly for the 19 to 25 age
group a £40 Fixed Penalty for some of the behaviour is quite
a hit, and quite quickly puts officers back on the street. So
we are seeing a turnaround, but before that I think it was a spiral
of, you just cannot cope.
Q410 Mrs Dean: Do we need
to give more publicity to the issue of Fixed Penalty fines so
that that acts as a deterrent?
Mr Fox: I think we are beginning
to see that people are getting used to them now. The customers
on the street, if you like, are used to them, and we are seeing
them now featured in a lot of television documentaries, so I think
it will begin to become a feature and people will know what it
means. They also know now that the police officer is not going
to disappear for perhaps three and a half hours and that in 15
or 20 minutes they will be back outside that club, which is quite
important.
Q411 Mrs Dean: Could you
let us have any figures on the issue of fixed penalty tickets
that you might have?
Mr Fox: I do not have them in
front of me but I can certainly get some.[4]
Mrs Dean: That would be helpful, Mr Winnick.
Thank you.
Q412 David Winnick: Mr
Fox, if a police officer with so many responsibilities, particularly
during the night, with hooliganism and the rest, finds someone
intoxicated and he is not causing any harm except to himself,
that person is not going to be arrested, is he?
Mr Fox: No, but this is about
people who are doing something which is affecting other people.
Everything from urinating in doorways to fighting. It is usually
the fighting that is an issue, or that behaviour which is vandalism
or just generally unpleasant. The happy drunk has always been
a happy part of the evening scene.
Q413 David Winnick: But
it does demonstrate why there have been far fewer prosecutions
previously?
Mr Fox: I think it is because
of the numbers, it was just unmanageable and officers were taken
away from the street for such long periods and so they chose to
try to get people to move on.
Q414 David Winnick: And
police officers have so much more to do than arresting someone
who is not causing any harm to anybody?
Mr Fox: I would hope so.
David Winnick: Gentlemen and Ms Barnett,
thank you very much for the evidence. You will see a copy of our
report in due course, but the evidence we have had from you today,
as with previous witnesses, will be very useful when we start
preparing our report. Thank you very much indeed.
4 See Ev 222, HC80-III Back
| 
