Antisocial behaviour reforms may see more young people locked up
Gabriella Jozwiak
Tuesday, August 6, 2013
Some may think of it as a harmless bit of fun, but thanks to a proposed change in the law, children could soon be criminalised for playing in the street, with far-reaching consequences for their ability to play outdoors.
Campaigners are planning to use the annual National Play Day on 7 August to highlight their concerns about how Home Office proposals could see children placed in custody as a result of simply playing outside.
The draft Antisocial Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill intends to redefine antisocial behaviour as "conduct capable of causing nuisance and annoyance". Play activists believe this widens its scope from the current definition of "harassment, alarm and distress", and could easily be applied to children playing in the street.
Under the proposals, children aged 10 and above would no longer receive an antisocial behaviour order (Asbo), but instead a crime prevention injunction. The redefined test for the injunction is the same as for the current antisocial behaviour injunction (Asbi), which has been used with social housing tenants since 2003.
While receiving or breaching the new injunction would not be a criminal offence nor result in a criminal record, a three-month prison sentence could still be imposed for breaches under the draft legislation.
As a result, the Standing Committee for Youth Justice's policy and parliamentary officer, Ali Crossley, says the chain of events that sees a child playing outside their house and ending up in jail is a real possibility.
"We're already hearing examples of complaints about apparent anti-social behaviour of children when all they're doing is climbing trees or kicking footballs in the street," says Crossley. "Our concern is that the change will massively widen the definition. It is so subjective that it could unnecessarily criminalise children and more children will be made subject to antisocial behaviour measures."
The legislation lowers the burden of proof from that used in criminal law, as is currently the case with Asbos, to one used in civil law, she adds. "This means they'll be easier to obtain for a much broader range of behaviour. If children breach them, they could end up in custody."
More harm than good
Crossley says the injunctions will include prohibition, such as banning a child from a certain area. They could also place positive requirements on the child to address the underlying causes of their behaviour for a maximum of one year. She says the positive requirements could cause more harm than good.
"Although it will be a really positive innovation if they do help to address the underlying causes of the behaviour, the reality is that the more requirements you place on children, the more likely they are to breach them if they're not supported to comply," Crossley says. "Given the financial climate, there's a real question for us as to whether these requirements are going to be properly resourced. Will there be a high-quality and wide range of interventions available? It is likely that won't be the case."
Breaches of injunctions are a serious concern for organisations supporting young people. Ministry of Justice figures from 2011 show that nearly seven in 10 children breach their Asbo, with imprisonment imposed as a sanction for a child Asbo breach in 38 per cent of cases.
"Even though a child with an injunction won't have a criminal record, it's a form of quasi-criminalisation because they will enter the criminal justice system," says Crossley. "At the most severe end, they will enter custody and be mixing with lots of other children who have been in the system. All of the evidence suggests being in custody increases the likelihood of a child reoffending because it's such a negative environment."
Play England director Cath Prisk raised the alarm about the bill proposals with a letter published in The Times in July. More than 50 organisations signed the letter, which described the proposals as "a real threat to the quality of life for children in England and Wales".
Climate of fear
Prisk warns that the problem is not just about children being served injunctions, but the climate of fear this will create among parents who will keep children indoors to avoid them brushing with the law.
"If a parent hears from a neighbour that their child has been a bit of a nuisance and the police came and warned them about their behaviour, you are less likely to want your kids to go out in case they annoy somebody and they call the police," she says. "Parents who don't feel confident to stand up to the police will just tell their children not to go outside."
Prisk suggests the redefinition will encourage communities to call the police instead of solving problems associated with play themselves. As chair of her own residents' association in a Hackney block of flats, she has had to tackle such issues. She says a resident recently complained about children playing noisily outside his flat. The residents called a meeting and agreed on a space where children could play away from the flats, which was recognised by all who lived there.
The children involved in the complaint also agreed to use softer balls that would make less noise. "If this resident had gone straight to the police, it would have escalated the situation," she adds.
Prisk is worried that children living in urban areas will be disproportionately affected by the plans, as they have fewer play space options available. She also points out that play can be the solution to, rather than the cause of, antisocial behaviour.
"Adventure playgrounds are places where kids can do things that are more challenging and risky - they are the solution for kids in areas of high deprivation," she says.
Reducing antisocial behaviour
Prisk cites two examples where adventure playgrounds have helped reduce antisocial behaviour in deprived areas: the Venture project in Wrexham, Wales, and The Indigos Go Wild in Torbay, Devon. "Councillors in those areas reported that graffiti and vandalism went down," says Prisk.
Play England has submitted evidence to the Home Office about its concerns, while Prisk also plans to hold a private screening for committee members scrutinising the bill of Project Wild Thing, a documentary that highlights the importance of outdoor play.
Play expert Tim Gill agrees that communities should be responsible for resolving "annoying" or "nuisance" behaviour among children. "Children are sometimes annoying - it's one of their jobs to be annoying from time to time," he says. "The government is sending out all the wrong messages and shows a complete misunderstanding about being a child."
Gill contrasts the bill proposals to laws introduced in 2010 in the German capital Berlin that exempted children from noise pollution legislation. "A government that was concerned about supporting children playing out would come out on the side of the children not the grumpy grown-ups," he suggests.
Charity Fair Play for Children national secretary Jan Cosgrove has raised concerns that the bill will undermine children's right to play. Referring to a UN general comment on Article 31 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child published in April, he calls for "serious changes to this bill".
"The general comment provides a legal framework for states when they legislate on matters which will affect play, and it points out the resistance to children playing out in many societies," says Cosgrove. The general comment notes a decreasing tolerance for young people in public spaces. It says: "Adolescents, in particular, are widely perceived as a threat by widespread negative media coverage and representation, and discouraged from using public spaces."
Promoting civil society
The UN general comment warns that excluding children in this way has significant implications for their development as citizens. "Shared experience of inclusive public spaces by different age groups serves to promote and strengthen civil society and encourage children to recognise themselves as citizens with rights," it states.
The Home Office says the new definition has been proven to work effectively in its use with the Asbi.
A Home Office spokesman says: "Antisocial behaviour causes enormous harm to communities and our reforms will give victims back their voice. The vast majority of young people are law abiding and make a positive contribution to society. However, we want to ensure local authorities have the necessary powers to take action against the small minority of young people whose behaviour seriously blights communities.
"Asbos simply didn't work, with more than half breached at least once. The new injunction is designed to nip problems in the bud before they escalate. We are replacing the old system with powers that are easier to use, more effective and backed by meaningful punishments."
FOR AND AGAINST: MIXED MESSAGES ABOUT PLAY
- In February 2008, David Cameron as leader of the Conservative Party launched the Childhood Review.
- Entitled More Ball Games, it argued that public space needed to be reclaimed for children to play.
- In June 2010, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg launched a taskforce to look at ways to support families. He said he wanted to see "spaces where children can play, where they can feel completely free, where they can safely push at the boundaries, learning and experimenting".
- The Department of Health announced in April more than £1m of funding to support playing out projects over three years.
- In Late 2013 or early 2014, the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill will become law. If antisocial behaviour is redefined as "conduct capable of causing nuisance and annoyance", play campaigners fear children will be discouraged from playing outdoors.
- Welsh local authorities are subject to statutory duties to provide play opportunities. The Scottish government is considering legislation. No such legislation exists in England.
- In 2008, the previous Labour government published a play strategy and in 2010 non-statutory guidance to assist local authorities in play planning. The current government has not continued this work.