The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

A Report on the Consultation Responses to Putting Our Communities First: A Strategy for tackling Anti- Social Behaviour

Chapter Seven Theme One: Protecting and Empowering Communities

In the next four chapters we present the qualitative findings from the written responses to 61 specific questions, structured around the four themes, set out in the consultation document. A full list of responses included in this analysis is contained in Appendix A.

The analysis in the following four chapters aims to identify the key issues and concerns arising from each proposal, to report on the main arguments offered in support or against each proposal and to highlight all the points made by respondents in relation to the proposals. It is important to note that this analysis does not always provide absolute numbers or proportions of responses supporting or rejecting each proposal (this is set out in Appendices D and F). Where reference is made to 'a few' or 'several' responses, this is based on a judgement about how many responses addressed a specific issue arising from a proposal. It therefore primarily provides a discussion of all the points raised, rather than an analysis of the proportions of responses making each point. It should further be noted that where examples of agencies and organisations offering a particular viewpoint are given, this is not necessarily an exhaustive list of all those giving this view. The numbers next to individual questions relate to their numbers given in the consultation document (pages 67-72)

This chapter provides findings on the consultation responses to proposals relating to:

• Anti-Social Behaviour Strategies
• Community Reparation Orders (CROs)
• Protection for Victims and Witnesses of Anti-social behaviour

7.1 Anti-Social Behaviour Strategies

The consultation document makes clear that community planning is to provide the overarching framework for tackling anti-social behaviour. The Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003 places a duty on Local Authorities and Chief Constables to jointly prepare and publish a local strategy for addressing anti-social behaviour. Views were asked on the following:

1. Should the formal duty to participate in the preparation of anti-social behaviour orders be extended to registered social landlords, particularly where major stock transfer has taken place? Should there be a formal duty on other community planning partners to be involved? Or is it sufficient that involvement of other community planning partners be referred to in guidance only?

2. What more should be done to promote effective information exchange to prevent anti-social behaviour?

7.1.1 General Comments

7.1.1.1 There was some concern amongst respondents about the assumption contained in the consultation that other agencies and local people will be involved in the preparation and implementation of anti-social behaviour strategies. These respondents felt that there was a need for a much more explicit statement of the desirability of the police and local authorities securing the active involvement of local people, or their representative organisations, in these strategies.

7.1.1.2 There was widespread support for anti-social behaviour strategies being developed through community planning partnerships, and also through community safety forums.

7.1.1.3 Several responses, including those from young people themselves and organisations working with young people such as Youthlink Scotland made the point that there was a pressing need to adequately involve young people themselves in the preparation and implementation of the strategies. This required more consideration being given by police makers as to how to ensure the engagement of young people within this process and the decision-making of their local communities. Many of these responses also raised the issue of how anti-social behaviour strategies would address divisions in local communities, particularly related to the tolerance or otherwise of young people's activities, and emphasised the need to build understanding.

7.1.2 Statutory Duty on Registered Social Landlords (RSLs)

7.1.2.1 The majority of respondents felt that a formal duty to be involved in the preparation of anti-social behaviour strategies should be extended to registered social landlords. Those in favour included the Chartered Institute of Housing, the Glasgow Housing Association, the majority of responding registered social landlords, local authorities and police organisations. As outlined in the consultation document, stock transfer was argued to make this desirable in order to fully incorporate RSLs within the process. RSLs were also encouraged by tenant organisations to involve local tenants and residents associations in this process. Issues arising from the proposed duty raised by respondents included the relationships between RSLs, local authorities and the police (discussed below), and the likely impact of this duty on RSLs, particularly given the diversity of their size, resources and the nature of the their local areas and client groups.

7.1.2.2 A minority of respondents, including the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations, felt for these reasons that a formal duty should not be imposed upon RSLs, or that the exact mechanisms for involvement should be at local discretion. It was suggested here that involvement in reducing anti-social behaviour should remain a performance indicator for RSLs, regulated by Communities Scotland. Concerns were raised by a number of responses about the emphasis upon social housing, which contributed to the labelling of tenants as problematic and did not address anti-social behaviour in the private rented or owner-occupied sectors. Particular concern was raised by several tenants' organisations about rental income being used to finance wider anti-social behaviour strategies.

7.1.3 A Duty on Other Community Planning Partners

7.1.3.1Whilst almost all responses identified the desirability for the widest possible involvement in developing anti-social behaviour strategies, the majority of respondents, including police organisations and most local authorities, felt that formal duties should not be imposed upon other community planning partners, but that it was sufficient that these partners be referred to in guidance. Where a formal duty to participate in the preparation of anti-social behaviour strategies was supported, agencies suggested as being covered by this duty included the Procurator Fiscal, Reporter to the Children's Panel, Sheriffs and Magistrates. A few respondents felt that the formal duty should extend to all landlords.

7.1.3.2 Some responses from individuals and organisations based in Scotland's cities suggested it would be desirable for local anti-social behaviour strategies to be developed and linked into city-wide strategies.

7.1.3.3 Both the Scottish Retail Consortium and the Scottish Grocers Federation argued that there should be a statutory duty upon local authorities to consult with local businesses in developing anti-social behaviour strategies.

7.1.4 Promoting Effective Information Exchange

7.1.4.1 There was unanimous agreement that the facilitated effective and comprehensive exchange of information between agencies was essential if anti-social behaviour strategies were to be implemented successfully. It was recognised that much of this exchange depended on the development of working relationships, built on trust, between agencies, but that this could be supported by a number of actions:

• Clear clarification of the roles, responsibilities and resources of various agencies
• The development of consistent processes between agencies and across areas of Scotland, based around common definitions and referral procedures.
• The recognition for information exchange to occur at the earliest possible stage to enable effective co-ordinated intervention.
• The requirement for information to be based on substantive evidence
• The Scottish Executive undertaking a comprehensive review of partnership interaction.

7.1.4.2 There was wide support for the extension of protocols between agencies. These protocols have already been established in many local areas and were deemed to be very useful. In particular protocols between the police and other agencies were identified as a crucial element of multi-agency working by many agencies and organiations. Such protocols could be developed in innovative ways. For example Streetwatch Glasgow reported that it was developing a protocol for social landlords to access CCTV footage.

7.1.4.3 Concerns were raised about a lack of clarity regarding the exchange of information between agencies in relation to the Data Protection Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights. Responses were concerned that the exchange of information should not contravene confidentiality issues, but equally, that confidentiality should not be an insurmountable barrier to information being provided. It was strongly recommended by several organisations that the Scottish Executive should publish clear guidance on how agencies should work with these pieces of legislation, and also provide good practice guidance on the use of protocols. It was further suggested that funding be provided for training in the use of protocols.

7.1.4.4 Responses identified the importance of the exchange of information between the police, local authorities and RSLs. Several responses argued that Section 115 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 be amended to enable the police to share information with RSLs, given that RSLs have now been granted the power to apply for ASBOs.

7.1.4.5 A minority of respondents argued that local authorities and RSLs, should have a statutory duty to share information regarding cases of anti-social behaviour in relation to applications for housing. It was suggested by several local authorities that other community planning partners should have a formal duty to exchange information.

7.1.4.6 It was suggested by several social landlords that a computerised national register of ASBOs be established, linked to the police national computer, along the lines of Matrimonal Interdicts for example, in order that landlords be able to check for ASBO records. It was emphasised that this should be subject to necessary safeguards, including individual records being time limited within the system.

7.1.4.7 Several local authorities suggested that the Procurator Fiscal or Sheriffs could share the outcome of cases with the police and local authorities. It was also suggested that the police share information about ASBOs with landlords.

7.1.4.8 Several respondents including local authorities and housing associations suggested that a 'suite' of nationally applicable data sets be developed, including the use of geo-mapping systems where appropriate.

7.1.4.9 Local co-ordination groups or information exchange forums should be established to develop multi-agency working between partners, based around the framework of community planning partnerships.

7.1.4.10 Responses from the police representative organisations indicated they would welcome clarification about the responsibility upon chief constables for data protection. It was suggested that for some forms of information exchange, responsibility could be defined at a more local level.

7.1.4.11 It was argued by several local community organisations that the exchange of information should be developed at a neighbourhood level, and that such neighbourhood level agreements should fit consistently with agreements at wider spatial scales.

7.1.4.12 Many respondents argued that there was a need to adequately inform local people about the role they could play in tackling anti-social behaviour. This included providing guidance about how to respond to incidents of anti-social behaviour, and strengthening communication channels between agencies and local communities. The involvement of young people in this process was identified as important. Several children's charities and organisations argued that young people should not 'be left out the loop' of information exchange processes in local communities.

7.1.4.13 The responses suggest that a balance needs to be struck between on the one hand, considering legislation and national implementation of information exchange systems and procedures, and on the other hand, enabling local partnerships to develop flexible procedures adapted to local needs.

7.1.4.14 A further balance needs to be struck between the rights of individuals and the requirements of agencies to tackle anti-social behaviour. Whilst it was strongly argued that confidentiality should not become a universal barrier to the effective exchange of information, it was equally strongly argued that safeguards on data protection and the rights of individuals should not be compromised in the interests of expediency. However, these two positions are not mutually exclusive, and the consensus appears to be that effective information exchange, based on evidence and subject to clear guidelines, can both ensure the rights of individuals and facilitate more effective partnership working to tackle anti-social behaviour.

7.2 Community Reparation Orders in the Criminal Justice System (CROs)

The consultation document proposes to build on existing restorative justice disposals available to the courts in Scotland by introducing legislation to make provision for a Community Reparation Order (CRO). The legislation will provide for a CRO to be used as a disposal of first instance for offences coming under the banner of anti-social behaviour. It will prescribe that the principal activity to be undertaken as part of a CRO will be visible reparation to the community. A statutory requirement will be introduced (subject to certain safeguards) on local authorities to consult with appropriate bodies about what form the reparation may take. District Courts will be given the power to impose these CROs. The consultation document asked for views on:

3. Should there be programmes for individuals as well as groups? Does this raise particular issues for victims?

4. Should an upper age limit be imposed on CROs so that they are targeted at young people (those up to 21 years of age)?

5.Which organisations/agencies should be consulted formally about the nature of reparative work to be undertaken?

7.2.1 General Comments

7.2.1.1 The majority of respondents supported the principles of community reparation. Two benefits, which may not be entirely complimentary, were identified as arising from this approach:

• CROs offered an opportunity for young people to be diverted into activities that would benefit the community and enable themselves to begin to engage with, and be reintegrated into that community
• CROs could provide a visible reassurance to local communities that action was being taken against the perpetrators of anti-social behaviour and that such behaviour would not be tolerated in local communities.

However, a number of points were raised about the specific application of CROs by the means described in the consultation document.

7.2.1.2 Concerns were raised that existing provisions were adequate and that a new measure would lead to confusions and place extra burdens on courts and agencies. In particular, East Ayrshire and Orkney Island Councils argued that care should be taken that CROs are not equated with community service orders which are legally imposed as an alternative to prison. Orkney Island Council suggested the number of hours to be served through a CRO should be limited to 50. Responses from Children's Hearing organisations pointed out that reparation schemes, as part of a supervision order, already existed as a disposal for Children's Hearing Systems and as a diversion from court. It was also argued by some of these organisations that Supervised Attendance Orders enable greater flexibility and targeting of behaviour strategies.

7.2.1.3 SACRO proposed that, as an alternative to CROs, community improvement schemes should be used, involving a wide range of youth agencies, and increasing the involvement of young people in the ownership and maintenance of local community facilities. Similarly, YMCA Scotland proposed that Personal Improvement Plans, with which it was already involved, should be considered before CROs were a disposal of the courts.

7.2.1.4 The principles behind reparation involve the voluntary commitment of offenders to these programmes. Several responses, including organisations such as SACRO involved in existing schemes, were unclear about how this voluntary element would coexist with the compulsory nature of CROs.

7.2.1.5 There was strong support from individuals and organisations for the emphasis of CROs to be upon education and constructive use of time, and for an order to be provided with additional support mechanisms, including addressing the causes of the behaviour, family circumstances etc. Several respondents felt that the emphasis on punitive sanctions, rather than rehabilitation, detracted from the potential value of such orders.

7.2.1.6 The effectiveness of reparation orders was questioned by responses including the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents and SACRO. Several respondents argued that the evaluation of similar schemes in England were inconclusive, and that further consideration should be given to the evaluation of pilot schemes in Scotland before the proposal was progressed.

7.2.1.7 Several respondents, including police organisations and victim support groups, were concerned that CROs should not open the possibility for repeat victimisation. Related to this were concerns about the extent to which victims of anti-social behaviour would wish to be engaged in this process. As one respondent who had been a victim put it: 'I would not relish having the perpetrators on my premises, even under supervision.'

7.2.1.8 This raises an important issue relating to group or individual reparation. Whilst group reparation involving general works in the community avoids direct contact between offenders and victims, it was argued by several organisations with experience of facilitating reparation schemes that individual approaches involving direct reparation to victims were often those most likely to bring about a change in the offender's behaviour.

7.2.1.9 There was division over how visible reparation to the community would be interpreted. If this meant that reparation would bring visible benefits to local communities, it was broadly welcomed. However, responses, including from children's charities, argued that they would not support visibility in the sense of the stigmatising of individual offenders within their local communities. This was argued to be detrimental to reducing anti-social behaviour and would increase the social exclusion of offenders. Against this viewpoint, others, predominately individual respondents, argued that a shaming element was important as a deterrent to offenders and potential offenders.

7.2.1.10 Issues of ownership and resources were raised by a large number of respondents. It was recognised that, particularly individual reparation schemes were very resource intensive, both in financial and staffing costs. It was also felt by several agencies to be unclear who would have responsibility for implementing and supervising these orders. Renfrewshire Children's Panel Advisory Committee suggested that in certain circumstances there may be a role for parents in supervising CROs.

7.2.1.11 Greater clarity was also sought about what sanctions would be put in place for individuals who failed to meet the requirements of a CRO.

7.2.1.12 As CROs are time limited, respondents argued that consideration needs to be given to support mechanisms for individuals beyond the life of a CRO.

7.2.1.13 Many agencies, particularly organisations working with young people, felt that there was a danger of failure to comply with a CRO leading young offenders on an escalating ladder of tariffs.

7.2.1.14 Two respondents suggested that CROs should be available to Children's Hearings rather than the courts.

7.2.1.15 A number of respondents argued that activities should be based on mental and physical capabilities of individual. Contact a Family Scotland stated that CROs should not be imposed on individuals whose behaviour arose due to disability. There were wider concerns about health and safety issues relating to young people carrying out certain activities as part of a CRO. Activities should also be tailored to local circumstances (e.g. graffiti removal is not suitable in some areas where graffiti is removed in 24 hours already).

7.2.2 Introducing CROs for Individuals in Addition to Groups

7.2.2.1 The majority of respondents supported programmes for individuals as well as groups. It was recognised that in some cases peer group working could be beneficial. The issue of resourcing individual programmes also needs to be addressed. Orkney Islands Council pointed out that individual programmes were likely to be a necessity in some rural areas. The substantive issues involved in individual programmes were not regarded as different to those discussed above.

7.2.3 Imposing an Age Limit (21) on CROs

7.2.3.1 Over three quarters of respondents to this question did not believe that an upper age limit should be imposed on CROs. There were four reasons given for this response:

• Anti-social behaviour was not confined to this age group
• Targeting this age group stigmatised and labelled young people. There was particularly strong resentment to this proposal from young people themselves. As an individual respondent it put it: 'No age limit will 'assure' young people that they are not an exclusive target.'
• The limit of 21 years was regarded as arbitrary. The issue was raised about what happened to offenders who were just over this age limit. It was also pointed out that 21 was not used as a demarcation in any other relevant legislation.
• Having CROs as an option for older offenders was useful and should not be prevented by an age limit.

7.2.3.2 The minority of respondents who favoured the age limit felt it to be useful because it covered those age groups most likely to be involved in the more minor acts of anti-social behaviour the CROs sought to cover. One response suggested an age limit of 17, and another 25. One other response suggested that there should be a demarcation between those aged 16-18 and those over 18, with harsher penalties for this older age group. One local authority felt that it may be useful to extend CROs to the 12-15 age group, although it recognised the need to comply with legislation limiting the working hours of school age individuals, and that CROs should not detract from school attendance or the completion of homework.

7.2.4 Agencies to be Formally Consulted with Regard to Reparation

7.2.4.1 The majority of respondents felt that victims needed to be involved in all stages of the process, to be kept informed, and to be aware that their involvement was entirely optional. There was general support for the agencies outlined in the consultation document to be formally consulted, namely victims' organisations, community councils and the police about the form that reparation may take.

7.2.4.2 In addition to these agencies, responses identified a wide range of organisations and agencies who should be consulted in the reparation process. These included statutory agencies including social work criminal justice teams, schools and/or school boards, the fire service, Locality Managers, health services, District Court Associations and the Procurator Fiscal. Victim support agencies, local voluntary organisations, particularly those working with young people, SACRO, children's rights groups. In addition RSLs, private landlords, businesses, further education colleges, religious organisations, tenants and residents associations and Neighbourhood Watch. It was also recommended that Women's Aid organisations and the leaders of ethnic minority groups be consulted in relation to relevant offences. Some responses also argued that Children's Hearing Panels and The Reporter to Children's Panel should be involved, indeed one response felt that local authorities should have a statutory duty to consult with the Reporter.

7.2.4.3 The Association of Scottish Police Superintendents believed that the police should not be the locus of a disposal for a CRO and should therefore be consulted. Similarly, the response from Angus Children's Panel indicated that they did not believe that children's hearings were an appropriate body to advise on the nature of reparation. The Haldane Regeneration Group and the WS Society argued that victims should not be directly involved in reparation.

7.2.4.4 Three responses suggested a role for community wardens in both determining the nature of reparation and its subsequent supervision. A larger number of responses were concerned that involving community wardens and housing officers in decisions about the nature of reparation would compromise their wider roles within local communities and that therefore they should not be involved in the preparation of reparation programmes.

7.2.4.5 Although no local authority explicitly objected to the statutory duty to formally consult other agencies and organisations, several local authorities and other agencies were concerned about ensuring the confidentiality of offenders and victims. They argued that in each instance, a comprehensive risk assessment should be carried out prior to developing a reparation package.

7.3 Protection for Victims and Witnesses of Anti-Social Behaviour

The Scottish Executive wishes to build on the measures it has introduced to protect victims and witnesses and to encourage people to report and give evidence in relation to anti-social behaviour. These measures have included victim support and witness services and a recently published Vulnerable Witnesses Bill. The Executive further wishes to promote the greater use of professional witnesses. The potential for community wardens to act as professional witnesses is highlighted in the consultation document, although it is noted that this must be considered in the light of their wider roles and credibility within local communities. The consultation document sought views on:

6. What more could be done to support victims and witnesses of anti-social behaviour?

7. What are your views on the greater use of professional witnesses?

7.3.1 Supporting Victims and Witnesses of Anti-social Behaviour

7.3.1.1 There was widespread recognition that fear of reprisals and victimisation were major issues in local communities, and contributed to the reluctance of individuals to act as witnesses in addition to adding to the fear and isolation experienced by victims of anti-social behaviour. The measures already undertaken by the Scottish Executive to address this issue were welcomed. A number of specific proposals for increasing support to victims are outlined below.

7.3.1.2 However, two key issues were identified by a large number of respondents as being most important in this regard. These were:

- To be able to demonstrate to victims, witnesses and the local community that timely and effective action was being taken against the perpetrators of anti-social behaviour

• The need for action to reduce the length of legal proceedings. Delays in the court frustrated victims and witnesses and in some cases allowed anti-social behaviour to continue. Whilst interim ASBOs were welcomed as a means of addressing this problem, there was a need to reduce the length of court proceedings, for example in eviction cases. The Glasgow Housing Association suggested that a specialist Housing Court could partially address this problem.

7.3.1.3 Other recommendations were:

• Victims, witnesses and alleged offenders should not have to share the same court waiting rooms. In relation to court proceedings, it was also proposed that CCTV or video links be used, as well as screens to reassure victims giving evidence. It was further proposed that the use of affidavits be considered to prevent victims or witnesses appearing in court, although there was recognition that the rights of the accused needed to be protected in this regard.
• Victims should be kept fully informed at all stages of proceedings, including being told of disposals or sentences arising.
• Support should be available to victims and witnesses throughout proceedings, including access to professional counselling services, being adequately informed about the nature of court proceedings, and also being cared for after the conclusion of court cases. Victims should also be able to withdraw from proceedings at any time.
• Some support was given to the idea of strengthening existing legislation in relation to the intimidation of witnesses. Addressing the intimidation of victims and witnesses by extended family members of alleged offenders was also regarded as important. Increasing a uniformed police presence was regarded as a useful means of reassuring victims and the wider community. In addition, it was suggested that victims and witnesses have access to security measures for their homes and access to a 24-hour phone line. It was argued that the wider community should be made more aware of existing ASBOs and RLOs in place against individuals. The final resort of re-housing victims should be available, but it was recognised this did not address the perpetrator of anti-social behaviour.
• The Scottish Strategy for Victims provides a framework for support. It was argued by victim organisations and many individuals that local victim and witness support strategies should be more fully developed. Dedicated anti-social behaviour teams, which have been established in several local authorities, were seen as an important vehicle for protection by several local authorities, along with various victim support services and relevant voluntary organisations, who were required to be adequately funded, with greater recognition and training offered to their volunteers. It was also suggested that neighbour support meeting networks could be established to tackle the feeling of isolation and helplessness amongst some communities. Related to this proposal was a suggestion that some forum should be made available for local people to provide information and raise concerns without making a formal report or complaint.
• It was suggested by a number of organisations that allowing a complainant anonymity for as long as possible would be beneficial. The Noise Association UK also suggested that investigations should proceed as far as possible before the alleged offender was informed. However, the WS society argued that alleged offenders should always be aware of the case being made against them.
• Whilst the use of the victim support service was welcomed, a number of respondents pointed out that presently, it is not funded to deal with proceedings at District Court, Hearing level, or ASBOs granted in a civil court, and this was where many of the disposals relating to anti-social behaviour would be situated. There was therefore strong support for providing resources to extend victim support services to these cases
• Organisations including Childline Scotland and Children First argued that the particular needs of young people as victims or witnesses needed to be addressed. Similarly, organisations argued that the needs of individuals with disabilities required due consideration. LGBT Youth Scotland stated that the needs of various minority groups needed to be considered within the victim process, particularly to improve the rate of reporting amongst LGBT groups. They gave the example of the Remote Reporting initiative operated by Lothian and Borders Police in partnership with LGBT groups as a means of taking this forward. Greater partnership working between local authorities and organisations such as Childline Scotland and the anti-bullying network were also recommended by Edinburgh City Council.
• Finally, a number of youth organisations and other respondents felt that, in relation to young people, the distinction between victim and perpetrator may be overstated, given that evidence suggests that many young people involved in offending are themselves victims of anti-social behaviour. This suggests a more holistic approach be taken to identifying the needs of victims and/or offenders.

7.3.2 Increasing the Use of Professional Witnesses

7.3.2.1 The use of professional witnesses was widely supported. They were seen to bring confidence to victims and communities, and had proved useful, for example in racist or child abuse cases.

7.3.2.2 A number of recommendations were made in relation to improving the use of professional witnesses. These included:

• Developing a national framework for professional witnesses, including a national programme of training and accreditation
• Standardising the procedures and practices of utilising professional witnesses
• Disseminating good practice guidance on the use of professional witnesses
• Building up an evidence base into the effectiveness of professional witnesses
• Increasing the weight given by Sheriffs to evidence provided by professional witnesses
• Ensuring that professional witnesses were available to all sections of local communities. There are examples of local authorities already offering their services to RSLs, but respondents suggested that such services could be extended to other tenures, funded through the Council Tax so that all residents could access these services and that the financial burden did not rest on the social rented sector

7.3.2.3 Three concerns raised about the use of professional witnesses were:

• The threat of reprisals or victimisation of professional witnesses, as they were likely to work and in some cases, live in the same communities as the alleged offenders they had gathered evidence on. This was seen to be a particular problem in rural areas, and was identified as such by Orkney Islands, Moray and Highland Councils as well as Dumfries and Galloway Housing Partnership
• Three respondents, including Dundee City Council, argued that professional witnesses should not over time assume ownership for addressing anti-social behaviour, and that their use should operate in parallel with initiatives aimed at encouraging local people to come forward as witnesses.
• Several respondents argued that the use of the evidence provided by professional witnesses should not substitute for the need to collate and present direct evidence

7.3.2.4 The consultation revealed greater divisions about the use of community wardens as professional witnesses. These included:

• The need for community wardens to be adequately trained
• The need for evidence about the effectiveness and implications of using community wardens as professional witnesses
• The need to ensure that community wardens were aware of the needs of all sections of local communities, and that in particular, there was no 'targeting' of young people
• The need for community wardens to be available in all tenures in order to prevent a 'two-tier' system developing between communities

7.3.2.5 A significant number of respondents offered views about the suitability of community wardens as professional witnesses in relation to their wider roles within their communities. This debate centred around different interpretations of the notion of 'credibility within communities.' For some respondents, the fact that community wardens were involved in professional witness duties compromised their standing within communities, and in particular was likely to jeopardise relationships with particular sections of those communities. However, a similar number of respondents argued the reverse to be the case, and that the visibility of community wardens being seen to gather evidence and take action against anti-social behaviour would be precisely what was required to build their trust and credibility within wider local communities. These two positions are not easily reconciled, and further evidence is likely to be required before an assessment of community wardens as professional witnesses upon their relations with local communities can be established.

7.4 SUMMARY

• Introducing a statutory duty on registered social landlords to participate in the formulation of anti-social behaviour strategies was supported. It was not felt by the majority of respondents that a statutory duty need be introduced for other community planning partners.
• More effective exchange of information was regarded as essential in the implementation of anti-social behaviour strategies, and a range of suggestions for taking this forward were provided, including the increasing use of protocols and shared databases, subject to adequate safeguards.
• The principle of community reparation was widely supported, although there were concerns about the exact nature and implementation of CROs.
• There was general support for the introduction of individual as well as group CROs
• A large majority of respondents rejected the imposition of a 21 years age limit on CROs.
• There was support for introducing a statutory requirement (subject to safe guards) on local authorities to consult with appropriate bodies in preparing reparation orders. Responses supported the involvement of the victim support organisations, community councils and the police as suggested in the consultation document. Individual responses suggested a large range of other organisations that may be consulted.
• There was recognition of the problems of fear and intimidation facing victims and witnesses. A range of specific recommendations for supporting victims and witnesses were put forward. The two most effective means of reassuring victims and encouraging witnesses to come forward were for timely and effective action to be seen to take place and for delays in the legal process to be reduced.
• There was general support for increasing the use of professional witnesses, and for increasing the support infrastructure for the use of professional witnesses. The use of community wardens as professional witnesses was more controversial, with conflicting interpretations about the likely impacts upon wardens' wider roles within local communities.

« Previous | Contents | Next »