During the 2006 state election, current government committed to the trialling of anti-

social behaviour orders. An Anti-Social Behaviour Order (ASBO) is a civil order

made against an individual who has been shown, through a legal process, to be
involved in ‘anti-social behaviour’. This behaviour might be a certain activity,
entrance to a particular area, congregation with particular people, or other behaviour
deemed as anti-social. Whilst an ASBO is a civil order, issued on a basis of non-
criminal behaviour, breaching an ASBO is a criminal offence. So can we try to
explain nature and purpose of ASBOs? How serious criminal offence is if we breach
an ASBO? Does it make more harm than good and is it effective to control anti social
behaviour persons.

The aim of an ASBO is to protect the public from the behaviour, rather than to punish
the perpetrator1. Anti-social behaviour orders first were introduced by Section 1 of the
Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and first used in 1999. The key is that an ASBO should
be used where it is the most appropriate remedy. Home Office research, published in
2002, found that the orders had delivered real improvement in the quality of life to
communities around the country its use of civil law procedures and the wide powers
granted to courts to impose conditions once satisfied that an ASBO was necessary,
were widely welcomed, but the research also made clear that these new procedures
had brought new problems with them, and these problems were part of the
explanation for the fact that in some parts of the country, ASBOs were being very
little used by practitioners2. Once identified, the Government acted quickly to address
these difficulties. It was amended by Police Reform Act 2002 and Anti social
Behaviour Act 2003. The Police Reform Act 2002 contains five important changes,
four of which are now (November 2002) being implemented. Courts may decide that
an ASBO will be valid throughout the country; it will be possible to apply for interim
ASBOs; registered social landlords and the British Transport Police will be able to
apply for ASBOs; and it will be possible for a court to impose an order at the same
time as passing sentence for a criminal conviction. From spring 2003 the fifth change,
enabling county courts to impose orders under certain circumstances will also be in
force3. Since then courts started to apply ASBO very widely to anyone aged 10 or
over according to Section 1 Crime and Disorder Act 1998.
1
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/anti-social-behaviour/penalties/anti-social-behaviour-orders/
2
http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/asbos/asbos9.htm
3
http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/asbos/asbos9.htm
Therefore, if you are aged 10 or over Magistrates court can apply ASBO to you.
Typical areas in which ASBOs generally applied includes graffiti, abusive and
intimidating language, drunken behaviour in the streets, dealing drugs, harassment of
residents or passers-by, verbal abuse, criminal damage, vandalism, engaging in
threatening behaviour in large groups, smoking or drinking alcohol while under age,
assault, vehicle crime and etc4. As a result an ASBO can ban an offender from visiting
certain areas, continuing the offending behaviour, spending time with a particular
group of friends. To issue an anti-social behaviour order can apply one of these
agencies: local authorities, Police Forces and British Transport Police, Registered
Social Landlords (RSLs) and Housing Action Trusts (HATs).Once an ASBO is issued
it lasts for a minimum two years. An ASBO is a civil order, not a criminal penalty –
this means it won’t appear on an individual's criminal record. However, a breach of an
ASBO is a criminal offence punishable by a fine or up to five years in prison5. Since
April 1999 up to December 2006 as reported to the Home Office there were 12675
anti-social behaviour orders issued at all courts in England and Wales. Courts issued
so many ASBOs and there are so many talks about them are they effective at all. To
this we can look from two sides, effective ASBOs and irrational ASBOs.

According to Home Office website anti- social behaviour orders are very effective.
There are number of cases which helped to control anti-social behaviour. One of the
cases where in a relatively isolated village, youths congregated nightly outside a row
of shops, up to 70 on weekend nights. ‘This alone was considered threatening but it
was their behaviour which intimidated and distressed locals to such an extent that the
area became a ‘no-go’ area after 6pm. The youths drank excessively, consumed drugs
and committed breaches of the peace, nuisance, public order and minor damage
offences. A significant proportion of offences were racially motivated, and the
behaviour seriously affected local businesses. Four ringleaders were identified.
Evidence was divided into ‘primary evidence’ – evidence from those willing to attend
court as witnesses – and ‘secondary’ – evidence from those who were not. The force
solicitor then produced a document bundle, which included the relevant pieces of
legislation; a case summary; the full witness statements (including names); certificates

4
http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/asbos/asbos9.htm
5
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/anti-social-behaviour/penalties/anti-social-behaviour-orders/
of consultation; and a draft order. This was then served in person to the four youths.
The orders granted were all for five years. Conditions included stipulations that they
should not use or incite or encourage others to use foul, abusive, threatening or racist
language or gestures within any public place within the village. They were not to
enter named shops in the village, or loiter within 100 metres of them or enter another
two specified locations or loiter near them. These measures have been largely
successful: the local police measured 24 incidents of disorder in the month proceeding
the Order and only 5 the month after. The ASBOs have combated the behaviour of the
ringleaders and reduced the behaviour of the whole group’6. This is only one of many
other cases solved very well with anti-social behaviour orders since 1999, all this we
can find out from Home Office, Police, Courts, but if there are so many complaints
from people most of them are unsatisfied about ASBOs. Is there more harm then good
from it?

On the other hand, newspapers always bold absurd headlines where ASBOs issued by
courts to one or another person does not make any sense. This makes people think
twice about ASBOs importance in our life. Strange ASBOs like: ‘Suffolk World War
II veteran Arthur Burgess, an 82-year-old widower, of Trimley St Martin, Suffolk,
received the Anti-Social Behaviour Order over a boundary dispute. He has been given
an 11-month prison sentence for breaching an ASBO for the second time, because He
threatened a neighbour and a council employee in a row over an oak tree’7; ‘A 52-
year-old man has been banned from any place of worship across England and Wales
after a series of public order offences at churches in Surrey’8 and there are so many
cases were ASBOs were breached. Often people think that it is unfair for them and
they bring cases to courts. Like a case with Chief Constable of Lancashire v Potter
[2003] EWHC 2963 (Admin) where a prostitute Lisa Marie Potter argued with Chief
Constable in the appeal court that was Chief Constable correct, as a matter of law,
when considering whether the conduct that he had found proved was likely to cause
harassment, alarm or distress9. Also specifically young people think that ASBOs are
against them – teenagers it is controversial issue of young people and ASBOs. Most
of young people think that it is stereotypical thinking that they are causing all
6
http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/asbos/asbos7.htm
7
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/suffolk/6443777.stm
8
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/surrey/7739428.stm
9
The Chief Constable of Lancashire v Lisa Marie Potter [2003] EWHC 2272 (Admin)
vandalism, shoplifting, joyriding and drinking or smoking while under age – all types
of anti-social behaviour. Besides people who do not like the use of the ASBO system
argues that it criminalises behaviour that is otherwise lawful, and only punishes bad
behaviour rather than helping to improve it10. Most of people with an ASBO issued on
them cannot say to be a danger to the public. Their behaviour is influenced by a
matrix of underlying problems that include a lack of suitable education provision,
poor parenting, social exclusion and drug dependency. ASBOs are attractive weapons
to combat behaviour that appears to blight many areas. Their employment will grow
in our zero – tolerance culture. As they are not designed to identify or address any of
the causes of that behaviour they will result in breach proceedings11. Many of them
started custodial sentences and many of them fill follow.

ASBOs nature is to stop unacceptable and anti-social behaviour and prevent members
of the public being targeted further by such acts. The ASBO, in theory, prevents a
perpetrator from being present in specific areas in local communities. Also whilst an
ASBO is a civil order we must not breach it, because it will be a criminal offence.
And if it is not so effective at controlling anti social behaviour, but tackling anti-social
behaviour effectively can help us to protect our communities.

Bibliography:

Home Office, A Guide to Anti-Social Behaviour Orders and Acceptable Behaviour

Contracts.
Melanie Krudy and Greg Stewart, Article: ‘Real life ASBOs: trouble-makers or
merely troubled’

10
http://www.crimeinfo.org.uk/servlet/factsheetservlet?
command=viewfactsheet&factsheetid=109&category=factsheets
11
Melanie Krudy and Greg Stewart tell the stories of people issued with Anti-Social Behaviour
Orders, Article Real life ASBOs: trouble-makers or merely troubled?
Websites:

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/anti-social-behaviour/penalties/anti-social-behaviour-orders/
http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/asbos/asbos9.htm
http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/asbos/asbos7.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/suffolk/6443777.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/surrey/7739428.stm
http://www.crimeinfo.org.uk/servlet/factsheetservlet?
command=viewfactsheet&factsheetid=109&category=factsheets

Statutes:

Crime and Disorder Act 1998

Police Reform Act 2002
Anti Social Behaviour Act 2003
Human Rights Act 1998

Case Law:

The Chief Constable of Lancashire v Lisa Marie Potter [2003] EWHC 2272 (Admin)