Agenda item

To receive a briefing on the changes within the new Act.

RECEIVED an update on the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 from Kaunchita Maudhub.

NOTED:

(i)            The Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 received Royal assent on 13 March 2014. This new piece of legislation was still being implemented by partners in the borough;

(ii)          The majority of the powers within the Act came into force as at 20^th October 2014, except Civil Injunctions which was still awaiting a commencement date;

(iii)         The overarching aim of the Act was to provide more effective powers to tackle Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB), protect victims and communities, and treat the underlying behaviour of perpetrators;

(iv)         The Act replaces 19 existing powers dealing with anti-social behaviour with 6 broader powers, streamlining procedures to allow a quicker response. The Government envisages that these powers will make it easier for agencies, victims and communities to take action against ASB and reduce repeat offending;

(v)          The Act introduces two new measures which are designed to give victims and communities a say in the way ASB is dealt with (Community Trigger and Community Remedy)

(vi)         The Act deals with many different issues, some of which did not concern the management of anti-social behaviour. There are 14 parts to the Act but for the purpose of this report to the Panel parts 1-7 (ASB and Dangerous Dogs) was covered;

(vii)        Kaunchita then went through the report and updated Members and residents on the updated powers, explaining in detail the old power and new power/responsibility of Authority.

Following Kaunchita’s update the following comments/questions were raised;

(a)  Councillor David-Sanders asked if the process for Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBO) and Criminal Behaviour Order (CBO) were similar. Kaunchita confirmed that the CBO process was very similar to the post-conviction ASBOs previously used;

(b)  Councillor Hamilton welcomed the Act however, she could envisage additional work for the Council ASB Team and questioned whether there would be extra resources to deal with this;

(c)  Andrea Clemons advised that there would not be additional resources available within the team. However they would be working very closely with the Police as it was very much a collaborative effort. Andrea did point out that some areas of the new Act would in fact result in less work for the Team. For example, Dispersal Orders previously involved a fair amount of paperwork/formal consultation. This volume of work would not be required under the new Act as the Police could now literally tell the perpetrator/s to leave an area;

(d)  The Chair enquired about whether any of the new powers had been used already. Kaunchita outlined the single situation where they had been used to date;

(e)  Councillor Hamilton was somewhat concerned over these new Dispersal Order powers being that the Police no longer needed to consult with the Local Authority or Community. Andrea advised that although it was not a requirement for Police to consult with the LA, there was an agreement that this would continue. This however was based on the fact that the Enfield Council ASB Team have a good strong partnership with the Police in Enfield;

(f)   A resident also raised concerns about the new Dispersal Zone Act as he said that it only operates for 48 hours therefore the Police Inspector would have to pre-empt a problem occurring. He felt that this was a major tool that had been removed from the Police in Enfield Town and felt that it was a very risky situation to be in;

(g)  In reply to a resident’s question Kaunchita confirmed that some of the new powers could be used where there was an issue of begging or vagrancy in the borough.

The Chair thanked Kaunchita for her interesting and informative update.