Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Written evidence from Mencap (ASB 14)

Summary

1. Mencap is concerned that the Anti-social behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill does not adequately take account of how many of the measures will affect people with a learning disability, particularly the clauses on i) responding to complaints about anti-social behaviour, ii) the conditions and prohibitions/requirements of the various injunctions/orders/notices to tackle anti-social behaviour and iii) criminalising forced marriage.

2. We would like to see steps taken to ensure people with a learning disability are not adversely impacted by the use of injunctions/orders/notices and that responses to anti-social behaviour and forced marriage afford people with a learning disability the strongest protection possible.

Response to complaints about anti-social behaviour (Part 6, Clause 96-7)

3. Mencap is concerned that there is no mention of vulnerable complainants in these clauses and no mention of people being targeted because of a personal characteristic about them. People with a learning disability are disproportionately likely to be victims of anti-social behaviour (ASB) and often they are targeted because of their learning disability – making it a disability hate incident or even a disability hate crime – but this is often not picked up and so is not dealt with adequately. We would like to see this link between ASB and disability hate crime acknowledged within guidance accompanying the Bill.

4. The Bill stipulates that an ASB case review will only take place if the victim applies for such a review and the authorities decide the threshold for a review has been met. Mencap believes that if the victim has a learning disability - or would be classed as vulnerable for another reason - the option of an ASB case review should be made very clear to them and relevant family members/carers, and the case should automatically meet the threshold for review. An ASB case review should also look carefully at any potential motivating factors, e.g. the person's disability.

Injunctions/Criminal behaviour orders/Community protection notices/Public spaces protection orders (Part 1, Part 2, and Part 4)

5. Mencap is concerned that people with a learning disability may not be made to understand the prohibitions/requirements of injunctions/orders/notices that are set out in the Bill, which could result in them inadvertently breaching such prohibitions/requirements. This could lead to people with a learning disability committing an offence and serving custodial sentences or paying large fines simply because information was not given to them in an accessible way. This is all the more concerning as people with a learning disability will often struggle to cope in prison and rarely have adequate financial means to pay such fines.

6. Communicating the prohibitions/requirements of injunctions/orders/notices in a way the person can understand, and ensuring rather than assuming this information has been understood, is the responsibility of the court/authorised person granting the injunction/order/notice. Where requirements are made of the perpetrator, and an individual/organisation is specified to supervise compliance with said requirements, they should also be made responsible for ensuring the offender's comprehension of what is required of them. We would like to see guidance cover information on prohibitions/requirements and the consequences of breaches so that perpetrators understand what is expected of them.

7. Mencap is concerned that one of the conditions for granting an injunction is that the individual 'threatens to engage' in ASB. This is subjective and, due to the prejudice and misunderstanding we know many people with a learning disability face in their communities, we are concerned that they could fall into this category unfairly. This is especially concerning as injunctions can exclude a person from their home - in effect making them homeless - and/or, where a power of arrest is attached, lead to a person being arrested without warrant and appearing in court within 24 hours. We would like to see appropriate safeguards for people with a learning disability detailed in guidance to ensure they will not be unfairly penalised.

Forced marriage (Part 9, Clauses 103-4)

8. Currently the Bill covers using violence, threats and coercion to force someone into marriage but not acts of deception, which we know can be a factor for people with a learning disability, who will often not have a full understanding of what marriage entails and so can be deceived into marrying someone.

9. The issue of mental capacity to consent to marriage is also not mentioned in the Bill. If someone lacks capacity to make the decision about whether to get married but ends up married, this has by definition been forced (as per the Mental Capacity Act 2005) - even if it has been done with good intentions by a family member

10. A small but significant number of reported cases of forced marriage involve people with a learning disability (58 out of 1468 cases in 2011, or 4%). Mencap believes that this is just the tip of the iceberg and people with a learning disability are disproportionately likely to be affected by forced marriage. This is because there is a higher than average incidence of forced marriage among South Asian families. In turn there is a higher than average incidence of learning disability in the South Asian community.

11. Furthermore ethnic minorities are less likely to receive services from local authorities – and social care services are becoming increasingly restricted – which we believe is causing some families to feel the only way their family member with a learning disability will be cared for is if they are married. Therefore Mencap would like to see guidance on those enforcing this legislation to take account of the specific issues people with a learning disability might face and the reasons forced marriage is such a concern for this particular group of people.

12. In addition, people with a learning disability who lack capacity rely on family, friends and carers and or statutory services to support them. This support network works for some but not for all and many are left vulnerable and exposed to everything from sexual, physical, financial and psychological abuse and in some cases being coerced into marriage.

13. Furthermore those enforcing this legislation must take account of the specific issues people with a learning disability might face and the reasons forced marriage is such a concern for this particular group of people. Information for this group, their families and carers about their rights would also be invaluable.

June 2013