« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
CHAPTER 10 CONCLUSIONS
10.1 Dispersal powers were seen by the police and residents of dispersal areas to have had mainly positively effects. At a minimum they provided a period of respite for local communities. This was greatly appreciated by residents of dispersal areas. In many of the locations this reduction in antisocial behaviour continued for a significant period after the dispersal period ended. The gains were achieved mainly through the additional focus given to the problem area by the police but also through the way in which dispersal powers allowed police to intervene in situations that they would not have been able to with existing powers.
10.2 There were however, reservations expressed with regard to the extension in police powers, the use of discretion and the severity of penalties for breach of directions to disperse. There was also an expressed desire to see continuing efforts dedicated to other possible solutions through community involvement in problem-solving approaches. The most commonly mentioned of these other methods included restricting the provision of alcohol, the re-design of problem areas and the provision of mutually acceptable services and activities for perceived perpetrator groups.
10.3 This chapter considers some of the main themes that were brought out in the report. It also offers some recommendations for good practice based following on from insights given by practitioners and others.
Effectiveness of the Powers
10.4 One of the criticisms of the proposed powers in the consultation phase was that the police already had sufficient powers to tackle antisocial behaviour. The Putting Our Communities First consultation paper (Scottish Executive, 2003a: 60) asked about strengthening police powers to tackle disorderly behaviour amongst groups and about extending the powers to deal with groups of under 16s. According to the consultation report (Flint et al, 2003: 109) 80% of respondents to the consultation opposed the introduction of the powers. This included the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland ( ACPOS) and the Scottish Police Federation ( SPF.) Both of these organisations believed that an extension of powers was unnecessary as police already had sufficient powers to tackle disorderly behaviour amongst groups (Flint et al, 2003: 110.)
10.5 This research, however, found evidence that many of the problems that were causing annoyance to communities were not being addressed through existing police powers. This was often due to a lack of evidence, the offending behaviour not constituting a crime, the desire to not involve young people in the criminal justice process and simply the effect, on enforcement approaches, of the period between an incident being reported and the police arriving at the scene.
10.6 Some participants to this research believed that the success of the powers was simply due to their high-profile nature and the extra emphasis that the police gave to a specific problem for three months. They believed that the same effect would have been achieved if there had been simply more police officers dedicated to an area for the three month period.
10.7 Many other research participants however saw the benefits of dispersal powers in the ways that they were different to previous powers. The main difference was the fact that police were acting in situations where they believed that antisocial behaviour was likely to occur. In practice this meant for example, that police were dispersing crowds of young people through the course of an evening before they had a chance to grow into an uncontrollable size.
10.8 The police found that they could manage public order in a way that they could not have done before with pre-existing powers. The new threat of arrest and the serious nature of potential penalties for breach of police directions to disperse increased the police's power within communities. This enabled the police to intervene in cases where individuals were not willing to test the resolution of the police.
"none of them, no matter how much of a "big shot" they think they are want to be arrested…there is a step change between [a fine] and having a criminal record." Resident
10.9 Some police officers commented on their concern that dispersal powers would raise expectations so that people would expect big differences that would be unrealistic from a police perspective. There was evidence from interviews with residents that expectations were indeed raised by the introduction of the powers and the attending media coverage.
10.10 In many cases however, these expectations were met through the course of the 3-month dispersal designations and members of the public experienced unprecedented quietness in their neighbourhood to the point that some people described the effect as being almost eerie. There was however, often a return of the behaviour after the dispersal period had expired and in some areas police were receiving many more complaints than they had received before, even if they were of a less serious nature.
10.11 Despite their effectiveness at tackling antisocial behaviour for the 3 months of their authorisation period, these effects did not always last beyond the end of the powers. The problems seemed to return most quickly in areas where there were few perceived alternative locations or activities for the perceived perpetrators.
Authorisation Process
10.12 Dispersal powers have been used far less than might have been expected given the much more widespread use of similar powers by police in England and Wales where there were authorised 809 times in the first 18 months after they were introduced (Home Office, 2005.) There was evidence that police found the authorisation process to be more expensive than expected, mainly due to costs incurred through compliance with statutory requirements to publish authorisation notices in the location and in local newspapers rather than costs incurred from extra staffing.
10.13 The main barriers to wider use appear to be related to public and media perceptions of dispersal powers as draconian or "last resort" measures. There is an emphasis within policing towards "problem solving" and preventative approaches where problems are identified and tackled through partnership work and information sharing among agencies. There is a perceived risk that the authorisation of dispersal powers symbolises a more extreme approach.
10.14 Due to the small number of previous authorisations of dispersal powers in Scotland and also the novelty of the powers and the focused media attention and scrutiny experienced, the police commonly took a more careful approach than is suggested in the official guidance. Police dedicated significant amounts of time to ensure that were being transparent and open through the consultation and information provision aspects of the operations so that police were seen to be using the powers effectively and appropriately.
10.15 Despite the careful way in which the powers were applied across all areas researched, other organisations were concerned about the potential misuse of the powers in the future. Fears were expressed about powers being applied simply to "clear" areas or to move on groups who caused alarm or distress simply by the fact of their presence. There were also concerns about the move away from problem solving towards enforcement philosophies. Concerns were also raised about the possibility of criminal convictions for individuals gained through repeated instances of low-level antisocial behaviour. Some contributors to this research were especially worried about circumstances where the offender might be thought to be vulnerable; if they were young, had mental health problems or if they were vulnerable in other ways.
Police Discretion
10.16 The Scottish Executive's guidance document published in 2004 says that a direction to disperse may be given to an individual, "where a constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the presence or behaviour of a group of two or more persons in any public place in the relevant locality is causing or is likely to cause alarm or distress to any members of the public." (Scottish Executive, 2004: 10)
10.17 The guidance offers examples of occasions when this "reasonable grounds" test might be met and it includes recorded observations by police officers, special constables, neighbourhood wardens, evidence captured on CCTV or evidence as reported by members of the public. The guidance also states that the "reasonable grounds" test would not be met where officers simply came upon a group whose members had been given directions to disperse previously "unless they had reasonable grounds for believing that those involved were likely to commit antisocial behaviour."
10.18 In practice this has given the police a large amount of discretion and there are examples reported of police giving people directions to disperse if they perceived their presence as potentially threatening even if their behaviour was not immediately threatening.
10.19 The "reasonable grounds" test seems to conflict with other parts of the guidance which says that "there is certainly nothing in these provisions which would allow a police officer to disperse persons of any age who are merely gathering peacefully in the streets to meet and enjoy each other's company." (Scottish Executive, 2004: 1) Experience has shown that in reality, people engaged in these normal socialising activities, may find themselves given directions to disperse if the police believe, on the "reasonable grounds" test, that their presence is causing alarm or distress to members of the public.
Displacement
10.20 According to police in most areas there was little evidence that disorder was displaced to other locations. Examination of command and control systems did not highlight significant rises in the number or severity of complaints in neighbouring areas. In one location a rise was noticed but further investigation showed that this was because perpetrators were staying in their own location rather than travelling to the dispersal area. The police often said they believed perpetrators were congregating in smaller numbers in their own areas rather than travelling to the dispersal area to congregate in large groups.
10.21 The police noted a distinction between displacement of behaviour and displacement of disorder. It is possible for groups to congregate in other locations but this may not necessarily represent displaced antisocial behaviour if the group is congregating away from residential areas or if topographical features prevent the effects of behaviour, such as noise, vandalism, litter, etc. from being felt by members of the public. Additionally it was the persistence of some types of antisocial behaviour that had created the problems for residents. In another location, members of the public may not perceive the effects of group behaviour in the same way.
10.22 Police often mentioned in interviews that they were not so concerned about moving the behaviour to other locations that were not located close to residential areas. Their aim was to relieve public distress; the managed displacement of the behaviour to other, less visible, areas was a satisfactory outcome for police. This addressed the antisocial aspects of the behaviour.
Alcohol
10.23 Many participants in the research, including police, councillors, youth workers and members of the public noted their concern about the links between antisocial behaviour and widespread alcohol use. Alcohol related behaviour was the main issue in Hunter Square and alcohol was seen to be a main contributor to antisocial behaviour problems in many of the other areas where young people were involved. Members of the public and business owners at Hunter Square were asking for a ban on public drinking in the Square before dispersal powers were used and this remained as their favoured solution even after dispersal powers ended.
10.24 In the other locations members of the public blamed the "alcohol culture" for the problems they experienced. Respondents repeatedly mentioned the wide availability of alcohol to young people. People spoke about the fact that it was commonplace for parents to buy alcohol for their teenagers to drink while they went out for the evening. A councillor spoke about a consultation run with young people to identify what services the council could provide, the response was that young people just wanted to be left alone to drink with their friends "they want a bench, a bin and a streetlight." Another councillor spoke about the massive increase in off sales license applications in his council area over the last few years and the contribution he felt this had made on youth disorder. Participants across the board spoke about the necessity of reducing the impact of alcohol to reduce group related antisocial behaviour.
Community Solutions
10.25 Some participants in the research suggested that the powers had enabled a greater amount of interaction between perpetrators and the police. They saw this as a deficiency in some of the dispersal areas prior to the introduction of the powers. Some police officers spoke about how the dispersal powers gave them the opportunity to make perpetrators aware of the effects of the behaviour on local residents.
10.26 In other locations, the extra focus given to antisocial behaviour by dispersal powers seemed to bring local residents together and established new lines of communication. It was common for there to be more contact between the local community and the authorities during and after the use of dispersal powers.
10.27 In some locations, this effect was achieved with "pre-dispersal" approaches that resolved the issues. Examples were offered where just the threat of dispersal powers led to a resolution of the problems through greater parental awareness of their child's movements.
Recommendations
- Dispersal powers should be regarded as a short-term means for authorities' to "get a grip" on a problem by breaking established patterns of behaviour and offering a period of relief to communities whilst other longer-term solutions are considered.
- Environmental features should be considered as possible contributing factors to antisocial behaviour. Dispersal powers may have a limited effect on breaking patterns of behaviour if the problems are ultimately caused or aggravated by the layout of the physical environment. The "designing out" of antisocial behaviour through lighting, road design, provision of seating and surveillance may provide more satisfactory solutions for the longer-term.
- A summary of evidence, from partners involved, of the data used to support the authorisation of dispersal powers allows the community and perpetrators to be aware of the precise reasons for the authorisation of dispersal powers.
- Official guidance should be revised to clarify the occasions on when police can give directions to disperse to groups believed to have benign intentions but who nevertheless are causing or are likely to cause alarm or distress by their presence.
- A programme of diversionary activity directed at the perpetrator group should be arranged to work alongside the dispersal powers to explore alternative locations for them to gather after the dispersal period ends. This also might limit the possible damage caused to the relationship between the police and the perpetrator group by highlighting the balanced approach towards improving the quality of life for all members of the public.
- The investment of time in preparatory stages of dispersal power authorisations allows community safety partners' and members of the public the opportunity to share a common understanding of the aims and progress of dispersal operations. Collective contributions towards the costs of dispersal powers also allow the financial burden to be shared among agencies and this acknowledges the joint responsibility for improving community safety.
« Previous | Contents | Next »