Anti-social!

Updated:25.3.07

The Labour Government is pursuing the use of anti-social behaviour powers with a frightening zeal. And in turn, local authorities are using these new powers to purge the streets and communities of people considered by those in authority as 'undesirable.'

In turn, a variety of important rights are being eroded, including housing rights, those of freedom of movement and the right to fair trial. Yet these developments are proceeding unchecked and with little comment or criticism. This section of the website will monitor the development of these powers, highlight the abuses to which they are being put, and explore some of the consequences.

If you are aware of examples of the misuse of these powers that should be highlighted, please contact KFx and we will include the details in this section. The Anti-social Media section looks at the mixed coverage of ASBOs in the media with applicable comment and analysis.

Seeking Closure: 25.3.07

This week, Drink and Drug News Magazine ran its first extensive piece on Closure Orders. These powers were introduced as part of the Antisocial Behaviour Act 2003. The legislation gives police and courts power to close premises associated with antisocial behaviour and Class A drug activity.

When the legislation was being put before Parliament, it was justified on the grounds that such powers were needed to close down "Crack Dens." Following a succesful lobbying campaign to prevent an extension of Section 8(d) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, the Government had decided, rather than extending Section 8, wholly new legislation was required.

Since the Act came in to force, it has been used extensively. In part this has been driven by the Home Office Antisocial Behaviour Unit, which 'encouraged' local authorities and policing regions to make more extensive use of these powers as part of its Crackdown campaign.

But there is increasing evidence that the powers are being misused, and that the legislation doesn't offer vulnerable people sufficient protection.

Christopher Cuddihee of Kaim Todners Solicitors has been proactive in challenging Closure Orders, and is the author of an article for the Law Society Gazette, and for Drink and Drug News on the subject.

He highlights how the short time frame specified within the legislation can see people deprived of a fair trial - and has successfully challenged this in the courts. Given the chaotic nature of some drug users, legislation that allows no leeway in terms of preparation or attendance at court reduces access to justice.

Cuddihee has also successfully challlenged the presentation of hearsay evidence, and the weight that can be given to it. And in doing so he has highlighted that people defending themselves against Closure Orders have been confronted by unsubstantiated, anonymous allegations recorded by the police and presented as grounds for closure.

Not everyone has had the sort of representation provdided by Kaim Todners.

In Cheshire, 53 year-old Valda Bostock was evicted from her house, due to the drugs related activies of her 30 year old son. It was reported that the court had denied her an adjournment to seek legal representation. (1 - reported 14.3.07)

In Hartlepool, the property of Sarah Whitehead was shut down at the start of March. Amongst the evidence put before the court were "containers storing needles," raising the unwelcome spectre that sharps disposal boxes can and are being used as evidence of Class A drug activity. (2 - reported 1.3.07)

In an example we missed from 2004, a Bail Hostel was closed, resulting in the eviction of 18 male residents in Bolton, in May 2004 (5 - May 2004)

Police in Swindon felt that simply getting a closure order wasn't enough for them, but filmed the proceedings and then gave the footage to the media so that they could stick it on their website (3 - reported 12.3.07)

There are many other examples - dating further back. Such as Operation Constantine, which saw families evicted and in one case a mother with three children allegedly moving to a tent. (4 - reported 27.8.05) Which is comparable to a case in Bacup where a Mother with two children, one of whom was a seventeen year old with Spina Bifida were evicted (6 - reported 16.1.07)

Back in 2002 lobbied hard for the proposed changes to Section 8 to be abandoned. Whilst pleased that this campaign was successful, we were worried about the lack of protection that Section 2 of the Antisocial Behaviour Act afforded - fears that now seem to be all to well proven.

We can only hope that, thanks to the work of people like Chis Cuddihee, more legal challenges can be mounted to this draconinan piece of legislation. And in doing so, we can ensure that people who are vulnerable get the support that they need whilst the safety of communities can still be addressed.

KFx March 2007

• for Chris Cuddihee's Article from the Law Society Gazette, click HERE
• for the Drink and Drug News Article "Unfair Crackdown" by Cuddihee click HERE
• for the KFx briefing on guidance for Tenants receiving Closure Notices click HERE

The (in)human face of Antisocial Behaviour Orders

KFx received this email from a woman whose daughter was the subject of an Antisocial Behaviour Order. With her permission, we have reproduced the email below. It illustrates how, behind the figures, and the tough talking of Louise Casey and the Home Office, real people with real needs struggle with a system that has few carrots and bigger sticks.

One of the most poignant and depressing aspects of the correspondence was the fact that the family in question, once tarred as an "ASBO family" find little support, sympathy or even a fair hearing from the media or the public. This is the other side, in the woman's own words.

If you are a legal practitioner or you wish to offer support or pro-bono representation please write to KFx and we will pass on your correspondence. Similarly if you have an ASBO story that you want to tell, please get in touch.

ASBO CONCERNS - by P.
November 2005

"I am the mother of a young alcoholic woman who was served with an Interim Asbo last August and has never yet had the opportunity of defending herself in court because there hasn't been a full Asbo hearing. She was finally granted Legal Aid in January of this year but for some reason the council put the case on hold.

Although she has been evicted from her home she is still seeking a full hearing with a view to clearing her name because she has evidence that she was being victimised by a small group of neighbours who had been trying to get rid of her for the past four years.

Before the Interim Asbo was served my daughter received Notices of Proceedings every six months or so, threatening her with eviction if her "behaviour" did not improve. Of course, there were no grounds to evict her but the Interim Asbo changed that. The council are now saying that she wasn't evicted because of the Asbo but because of the last Notice of Proceedings. Why then did it take four years?

Hers is a very complex story. My daughter will agree that during the summer of 2001 her neighbours had a cause for concern because of her ex-partners drug problems and associations with undesirables. Since then there were a few isolated incidents in her home but she never directly bothered any of her neighbours. She did try mediation through the council as a way of apologising but they did not want to know. The campaign to get rid of her was well underway.

Last summer I went with her to a lawyer to see what could be done because she was sick of receiving these Notices of Proceedings. The lawyer said she would write to the council to highlight my daughter's problems, including the fact that she had suffered from post natal depression since her son was born in 1999. Shortly after that my daughter was viciously assaulted by one of the male neighbours and although she couldn't get him charged she managed to get an Interdict against him for her future protection. (This same individual and his family are guilty of other acts like this in the street and he is currently on bail) This was also forwarded to the council with a good reference from her previous landlord. A few weeks later she had a fire in her flat and the neighbours went into a frenzy. There was extensive smoke damage but nothing else. This prompted a visit by two characters from the council's anti-social investigation team who proceeded to search her flat and make comments like "90% of the neighbours want you out..." I tried to complain about them to the council. The result of this series of events was for my daughter to receive a summons a few days later to appear in the Sheriff Court!

I wrote to every neighbour in her street following this and received nine signed replies stating that my daughter was not a problem. I also received one anonymous reply stating that she was being victimised by a small group of neighbours. I had concerned neighbours approach me in the street telling what was really going on. As for her eviction, my daughter had a good defence but was too ill and distracted to keep her lawyer's appointments. She was so sickened by events that she decided to terminate her tenancy instead. She put this in writing to the council and was interviewed by an officer who explained that a twenty-eight days notice waiver form would need to be handed in with the keys before the eviction date. Sadly, my daughter disappeared for two days before the hearing and the form was never signed. On the day of the hearing her lawyer tried to get a further two week delay but the council objected and the "eviction" went ahead, much to the delight of the neighbours who wasted no time in contacting the local press. The very next day the story appeared in the tabloids. I cannot quantify in words the misery their action caused our family that week.

This story may seem lengthy but there is actually much more to add. I will end by saying that I feel these Asbo's are being mis used when served on the vulnerable. Of course, people have the right to be free of true anti-social behaviour but increasingly they're being used unjustly, as in my daughter's case. This is truly a backward step for society, where the weak are held up to ridicule and tormented. I only hope my daughter will be well enough to defend herself at a full hearing."