The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 introduced new ASB powers which will replace ASBOs and other orders. The new civil injunction is the main replacement for the ASBO and will come into force on the 23^rd March 2015.

SCYJ’s guide to the new powers sets out local policies and practices that SCYJ recommends are introduced alongside the new orders. SCYJ believes that following these research-based recommendations will give the new orders the greatest possible chance of bringing about lasting changes to children’s behaviour and so reducing anti-social behaviour in communities.

Thank you for your help in protecting children’s rights!

The Government has announced that they will support the will of the House of Lords by retaining the definition of anti-social behaviour as causing “harassment, alarm or distress” in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill.

In an overwhelming government defeat, the House of Lords voted to scrap the government’s definition of anti-social behaviour – behaviour causing “nuisance or annoyance” – and stick to the original “harassment alarm or distress” definition.

We were concerned that – as the Bill moved back to the House of Commons – the government could take this opportunity to undo the amendment decided upon by Peers. Thankfully, the government accepted the will of the House of Lords and therefore the change to the legislation.

So we wanted to thank you for taking the time to sign and share the petition – we couldn’t have stopped this legislation without your help.

You can keep up to date with the rest of our work by following us on twitter or signing up to receive email updates.

And finally, a special thank you to our colleagues in the Children’s Society, JUSTICE and the Criminal Justice Alliance for working tirelessly with us on this issue.

The Government amendments mean that ASB will continue to be defined as conduct causing “harassment alarm or distress”, except in cases related to housing, for the purposes of the new ASB injunctions (IPNAs).

This is in-keeping with existing law, which the Bill seeks to replace, and with the decision the House of Lords took when they debated the ASB definition earlier this month.

The SCYJ has been campaigning to change the definition of ASB with the Children’s Society,Criminal Justice Alliance, JUSTICE, Liberty and Reform Clause 1.

In response to the Government’s amendments, Penelope Gibbs, Chair of the Standing Committee for Youth Justice, said:

“The SCYJ is really pleased that the government has decided not to fight peers’ opposition to the proposed definition of Anti-Social Behaviour as “conduct capable of nuisance or annoyance”. This definition was too broad and risked getting thousands more children unnecessarily in trouble with the law. We are still campaigning for the government to restrict the use of imprisonment for 14-18 year olds who breach the new injunction but we are hopeful this shows the government are willing to listen and adapt.”

Notes to Editors

1.The Standing Committee for Youth Justice (SCYJ) is a membership organisation campaigning for a better youth justice system. We have over 30 organisations as members, a full list can be found here

2. The full Government amendments can be found here

3. For the purposes of ASBOs, the definition of ASB is “harassment alarm or distress”. Existing ASB orders for housing related cases (ASBIs) define ASB as “nuisance or annoyance”, these can only be used in a housing context. The Anti-social Behaviour Bill seeks to replace ASBOs with a new injunction (IPNAs). This injunction, which would be applicable to behaviour in any context, defined ASB as “nuisance or annoyance”. The Lords passed an amendment at Report Stage of the Bill, changing the definition of ASB for the purposes of the IPNA to “harassment alarm or distress”, other than in housing related cases where the “nuisance or annoyance” definition would remain. Today, the Government tabled its own amendments in-line with the Lords Report amendments.

The Government lost by 178 to 306 votes – a pretty significant defeat.

But it’s not over. There is a chance that the Government will try to reverse the Lord’s decision and return to the “nuisance and annoyance” definition when the Bill goes back to the House of Commons. We’ve since signed a letter to Theresa May, alongside organisations such as JUSTICE and the Criminal Justice Alliance, asking the Home Secretary to respect the House of Lords decision and not to attempt to change the definition of anti-social behaviour when the bill goes back to the Commons.

SCYJ, along with JUSTICE, Liberty, The Children’s Society and CJA, is working with Peers to table and support amendments to the Bill.

The Earl of Listowel has tabled amendments which would prevent children from being imprisoned for breach of the IPNA (the new ASBO) or failure to comply with the new police dispersal power.

Lord Dear has tabled amendments which would change the definition of ASB for the purposes of the IPNA. His amendments would return the definition of ASB to that used in the ASBO – conduct causing “harassment alarm or distress” – except in housing situations where the definition would remain as conduct causing “nuisance and annoyance”.

Last week the Government tabled some a series of amendments to the Bill, including:

• Amending the definition of ASB for the purposes of the IPNA. Instead of “conduct capable of causing nuisance and annoyance to any person” the government proposes to change the definition to “conduct that could reasonably be expected to cause nuisance or annoyance to any person”.
• Linked applications:  amendments would allow IPNA applications against adults to be heard in the youth court where the application is linked with to an application against a child.
• Power to exclude someone from their own home:  amendments would prevent powers to exclude people from their own home from applying to under-18s.
• Police dispersal powers: amendments specify that the police must consider the right to freedom of expression and assembly when using the new police dispersal power.
• Guidance: amendments would give the Guidance accompanying the Bill a statutory underpinning

. The briefing is available here.

SCYJ have since signed a joint letter to the Minister in charge of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill – Lord Taylor of Holbeach – urging the government not to change their existing policy on IPNA applications on children. Read the letter here.

The amendments, organised by each individual organisation, covered a range of issues including:

• Imprisonment as a sanction for breach of a CBO and Disperal Order for under-18s (read here)
• The change to the definition of anti-social behaviour to “likely to cause nuisance or annoyance” and the lowering of the burden of proof to “balance of probabilities” (read the JUSTICE briefing here and the CJA briefing here)
• The naming and shaming of under-18s (read here)
• The lack of discretion granted to judges when considering eviction proceedings (read here)

Alternatively, you can view the documents in our publications section.

We also had a letter featured in The Times which you can view below.

Letter printed in The Times, Monday 10 June

Sir

We welcome measures to ensure communities can take control and tackle anti-social behaviour effectively.

However, the current Anti-Social Behaviour Bill is seriously flawed as it fundamentally redefines and broadens the scope of what constitutes anti-social behaviour to include “conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance”. Clearly, the list of potential activities that could fall within this definition is limitless; what some may find to be innocent fun can annoy others.

The new ‘Injunction to prevent nuisance and annoyance’ can be handed down to anyone over the age of 10 years old within a matter of hours, is subject only to a low burden of proof, is open to indefinite periods of duration for adults, and does not require any form of intent. Breach of the injunction can result in sanctions, including imprisonment.

Such ill-thought-out legislation will sweep up all kinds of noncriminal and non-serious behaviour – wasting police time and clogging up the courts. It threatens to take resources away from genuinely harmful or distressing behaviour, where the police and other services should be focused.

The coalition and opposition should listen to the call by the cross-party Home Affairs Committee to “end the arms race” against Anti-social Behaviour by setting reasonable limits on the behaviour covered by the new powers.

Dr Charlotte Alcock, CEO, MAC-UK

Dr Tim Bateman, National Association for Youth Justice

Sandra Beeton, Executive Director, Association of Panel Members

Andy Bell, Deputy Chief Executive, Centre for Mental Health

Jodie Blackstock, Director of Criminal Justice Policy, JUSTICE

Sarah Brennan, Chief Executive, Young Minds

Ellen Broome, The Children’s Society

Anne Marie Carrie, Chief Executive, Barnardo’s

Frances Crook, Director, The Howard League for Penal Reform

Dr Hilary Emery, Chief Executive, National Children’s Bureau

Penelope Gibbs, Chair, Standing Committee on Youth Justice

Vicki Helyar-Cardwell, Director, Criminal Justice Alliance

Charlotte Hill, Chief Executive, UK Youth

Professor Kathryn Hollingsworth, Newcastle Law School

Gareth Jones, Chair, Association of Youth Offending Team Managers

Thomas Lawson, Chief Executive, Leap Confronting Conflict

Juliet Lyon, Director, Prison Reform Trust

Gracia McGrath OBE, Chief Executive, Chance UK

Nick Pickles, Director, Big Brother Watch

Susanne Rauprich OBE, Chief Executive, National Council for Voluntary Youth Services

Isabella Sankey, Policy Director, Liberty

Jane Slowey, Chief Executive, The Foyer Federation

Emma Thomas, Chief Executive, YouthNet

Paola Uccellari, Director, Children’s Rights Alliance for England