Agenda item

(Director Environment and Street Scene)To consider the attached report.

Paul Gardener, the Safer Communities Officer introduced the report on the Home Office consultation on more effective responses to anti-social behaviour. They were looking to open up current legislation and bring it under one umbrella act. The Panel noted that the consultation period ran up to 3 May 2011 and that this Panel’s response would be reported to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 11 April.

The consultation document was divided up into six parts:

(1)  The Criminal Behaviour Order – this will be a civil order available on conviction for any criminal offence, similar to an ASBO. Maximum penalty for breach proposed is 5 years imprisonment;

(2)  The Crime Prevention Injunction – this is a civil order of proof (balance of probabilities) making it easier to obtain. These two new powers are intended to replace the existing Anti-Social Behaviour Orders;

(3)  The Community Protection Order (CPO) – available to police and local authorities to restrict the use of a place or close a premises linked with persistent ASB;

(4)  Police Direction Power – this allows police to direct any individual causing or likely to cause crime and disorder away from a particular place and confiscate relevant items. If this came in, officers would like PCSOs to have the power of arrest to enable them to have a credible alternative when asking people to move on;

(5)  Informal tools and out of court disposals – the Home Office were exploring more community engagement to enhance the restorative approach, for example by introducing Acceptable Behaviour Contracts Panels chaired by trained local volunteers; and

(6)  The Community Trigger – this will be a new power given to local residents to ensure ASB is being dealt with by the relevant authorities in their area.

These were summarised in the report and the officers draft responses were attached as an appendix.

Councillor Spencer asked if the new ASBO system would mean more court cases. He was told it would not as it would be directed to a persistent offender, which they would try and get to before it went to court.

Councillor Spencer then asked if the power of citizen’s arrest did exist and was told that it did. Councillor Jacobs agreed with officers that PCSO needed the power of arrest.

Councillor Smith referring to the informal tools and out of court disposals proposals thought the public would be asked to play a greater role, but how would local authorities play a part in this. Mr Gardener said it was designed to look at community punishments (also known as restorative justice). It was looking to empower local people to impose local punishments and to help keep young people out of the criminal justice system.

Councillor Smith asked if the proposed panels would sit under the police side or the local authority side. She was told that it would be a partnership, possibly in conjunction with the Restorative Justice Team in Essex and the Youth Offending Team. It would all tie up with the government’s ‘Big Society’ initiative.

Councillor Breare-Hall asked what the resource implications were. Mr Gardener said that community punishments would need people to run courses, supervise offenders and generally monitor attendees. If they breach an order there would have to be some sanctions, such as taking them back to court. This will have manpower implications and we need to know what we will be signing up to and what resources would be needed.

            RESOLVED:

(1)               That the Home Office consultation paper on more effective responses to Anti-Social behaviour be noted; and

(2)               That the suggested replies to the consultation be endorsed by the Panel and referred to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.