« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
CHAPTER 5 PROCESSES USED IN AUTHORISING AND USING DISPERSAL POWERS
5.1 Dispersal powers can only be authorised by senior police officers who have reasonable grounds for believing that antisocial behaviour is significant, persistent and serious. An authorisation can be signed after consultation with the local authority (initially at Chief Executive level) but the ultimate decision on whether to authorise dispersal powers is made by senior police officers at Superintendent rank or above.
Initiation Process
5.2 Following the 2004 Antisocial Behaviour Act, the Scottish Executive published official guidance on the dispersal of groups legislation. This covered definitions of antisocial behaviour in relation to the congregation of groups, the required procedure in authorising and policing dispersal powers and recommendations for good practice. This was circulated to all police forces that were then responsible for briefing police officers and agreeing protocols for the use of powers in their own police force.
5.3 The nature of authorisations was different in each location due to idiosyncrasies of local partnership working, the personalities involved, past experiences of tackling group antisocial behaviour and procedures already in place. A similar overall process was however, followed in each location (see Figure 5.1)
5.4 The official guidance document, published by the Scottish Executive in 2004 and provided to police forces, was commonly used in each location by the police as they went through each step of authorising the powers. In some cases where there were strong links with antisocial behaviour or community safety representatives in local authorities, the guidance was used to inform protocol agreements between police and the authority. These commonly described the roles and responsibilities of each partner especially where the dispersal powers were closely integrated with the local authority's policies on the use of ASBOs and ABCs. In other areas, the police operated much more as a lead agency and established procedures on their own.
Figure 5.1 Dispersal Authorisation Procedure
Perceptions of Dispersal Powers
5.5 In interviews police spoke about some of the pressures they felt whilst they were initiating the authorisation process. There was an awareness of possible public views that dispersal powers were extreme or draconian measures out of proportion to the problems.
5.6 Police, councillors and local people believed that there was a stigma attached to antisocial behaviour measures, and some experienced negative media coverage and letters of complaint when it was announced that they were being used. This effect was felt in the locations where dispersal powers were first authorised: Aberdeen, Hunter Square and Mid Calder. These areas received large amounts of coverage, much of it from a negative perspective. Local police and residents in Mid Calder spoke about the surprise they felt when prominent national tabloids featured an articles on them with headlines: "The Village of the Banned" and "No-Go ASBO Town."
5.7 Police in locations where dispersal powers were used most recently were aware of what had happened previously and prepared for a possible backlash. Some of these complaints were about the effect on house prices, and the general reputation of the locations if they became thought of as troubled areas.
5.8 Police often felt that the high profile nature of the powers meant that there was an added risk attached to their use: if they used the powers and they failed they could lose the trust of the local community, suffer media criticism and provide a signal to perpetrators of antisocial behaviour that the police were powerless to deal with their behaviour. The fact that the police alone bore the ultimate responsibility for authorising the powers made this a more important factor.
"…at the moment there is media interest every time an order is put in place and so you have to be prepared for that" Police Superintendent, Dingwall
"The fear is that we designate something as a dispersal order and the disorder continues…I was coming in here each morning hoping and praying that nothing major happened in the dispersal zone." Police Superintendent, Dennistoun
Initial Stages and Preparatory Work
5.9 In some of the first locations to authorise dispersal powers the impetus came from patrol officers. On a couple of occasions these requests were initially rejected by more senior officers. When interviewed these police officers said that they believed this was due to a hesitancy to use untested methods. In these cases, the powers were eventually authorised after police officers were persistent.
5.10 The perceived risk caused by the high profile of the powers meant that it was more common than it otherwise might have been for police to gain as much support as possible from the local community, council, central police intelligence units and the procurator fiscal service.
5.11 Before some of the most recent authorisations were made, police made contact with and visited their counterparts in the locations where dispersal powers were used and took advice on a variety of issues including choosing the size of designated areas; displacement strategies; staffing requirements and other policing issues.
5.12 In one of the early cases the initial idea came from the community council who asked the police to look into the possibility of using dispersal powers. In most cases however, the police came up with the idea and then proceeded to consult the local community to see if they would be supportive.
5.13 In the cases where the response of the local authority or wider community was ambiguous, often due to concerns about adverse media coverage or simply through ignorance of what they might achieve, the police had to decide to authorise the powers based on their own understanding. Police acknowledged the risks attached to this strategy but said in interviews that the community and other individuals (often including people who had previously been opposed to the introduction of the powers) often offered much more support once they saw the effects of the powers.
5.14 In Glasgow, the partners decided to try 3 month long action plans in areas where dispersal powers were being considered as an option. For these 3 months a variety of other methods would be used to see if the problem could be addressed without the use of dispersal powers. Typically this would involve police and local authority home visits to perpetrators of antisocial behaviour and community wardens would be deployed in the area as well as mobile CCTV and the flexible police unit. They would also try to build in support for victims through a special "Victim Support Service." In one location in the south west of the city this approach led to a reduction in antisocial behaviour and the dispersal powers were not required.
5.15 So-called "pre-dispersal" approaches were tried in other places where the police were considering using dispersal powers. In some locations (including Fife and Tayside where no dispersal powers have been authorised so far) the police spoke to local people about the possible use of dispersal powers if other methods failed. Police representatives in these locations said that on these occasions dispersal powers were effective simply as a threat. Improvements in antisocial behaviour were said to be achieved through greater involvement in problem solving.
Standard of Evidence
5.16 The legislation stated that senior police officers could only authorise dispersal powers where antisocial behaviour is significant, persistent and serious. The official guidance offered flexibility to police officers in the interpretation and definition of these terms but said that police should justify the use of dispersal powers with evidence to show that the behaviour:
- considerably affects the lives of people on whom it impacts,
- is source of several complaints made by different individuals,
- is recorded by the police,
- follows a repeated pattern,
- poses a possible danger or risk to members of the public,
- could have built into an annoyance through the cumulative effect of repeated incidents.
5.17 The guidance suggested that evidence of antisocial behaviour might come from the accounts of those who have been alarmed and distressed by the behaviour but also from a range of other sources including, police, community wardens, community safety partnerships, housing officers, social work officers, other members of the public or CCTV footage.
5.18 The lack of a specified form of evidence meant that there was no standard communication used to justify the use of the powers to members of the public. Evidence was sometimes referred to in authorisation notices and press releases but this was not always the case. These statements were generally a basic summary of the local issues rather than a formal presentation of complaints statistics or incident logs.
5.19 The evidence that was used to support the authorisations came mainly from police incident databases. In many cases, police analysts produced reports that showed the escalations in types of antisocial behaviour for the locations. Evidence also came from personal observations and experiences of policing the locations in question. In one location, even though there had been a steady increase in problems over time it was the occasion of a single violent incident, alongside the statistics showing regular disorder, that the police used to demonstrate the need for extra measures.
5.20 The discretion given to police to authorise the powers based on their own analysis of the problems potentially was felt to leave them open to criticism for heavy-handedness and publicity seeking.
5.21 In one of the locations, where the local councillor and police had received complaints about the use of the powers, the local MSP sent out a survey to residents. This took place at the end of the dispersal period and was distributed to all households in the relevant area. Local people were asked if they believed the dispersal powers were necessary and 95 of the 136 respondents (70%) said they believed they were. Many of the respondents also took the opportunity to note their thoughts on the issue and where there were objections to the dispersal powers, these were commonly concerned with the effects of negative publicity on the area or general criticisms of previous police approaches.
5.22 There was no evidence in any of the locations that local people believed the police had acted where no problem of antisocial behaviour existed.
Consultation with Local Authority
5.23 One requirement in the legislation is that the police consult the local authority at Chief Executive level. Following on from the initial enquiry this was often delegated by the CEO to the team responsible community safety.
5.24 In most cases the local authority was supportive of the initiative and the dispersal powers simply fed into the structures that had been established for community safety work.
5.25 In one case the police decided to use the powers without their agreement. This lack of willingness to back the use of the powers was attributed by the police, to the council's concerns about the possible impact of the powers on youth justice services and a fear that this would increase pressure on the local authority to provide diversionary services.
5.26 In some locations, tensions were described between different council departments. Some social work and youth services representatives from local authorities were concerned about balancing the needs of the perpetrators of antisocial behaviour with the need to protect the public from harassment. This often provoked tension between council social work and community safety departments who often assisted the police.
5. 27 In one location youth justice workers and social work officers were worried that young people might be criminalised with the use of the powers. It was agreed in the procedures that these departments would be alerted at an early stage if there was a breach for an under 16 year old or if there were other concerns, so that it could be channelled through a children's hearing.
5.28 There was a feeling among police that there was overlap between the roles of police and local authority in tackling antisocial behaviour and that by using the powers the police were supporting the local authority. In some cases this was acknowledged and some councils funded or joint-funded the newspaper advertisements and signage. In other areas the police asked for funding but councils decided not to provide it.
5.29 In all cases however, the authorisation of the powers depended on strong police support. It was clear that dispersal powers were a police initiative and that they were asking for cooperation and partnership. Sometimes it was clear that there were different perceptions of need between police responsible for areas within a police division and the local authority staff responsible for the whole authority area.
"When they were looking at the dispersal order, at the very first meeting I thought "My God this is going to be [the first one] and they are looking at it in [an area] which we knew wasn't the worst... We are lucky because we get an analytical overview of every division… to know where the worst areas are." Local Authority, Community Safety Manager
Legal Advice
5.30 In some locations the police approached council solicitors to help with the wording of the authorisation notice and to check the legislation to see that they were complying with the legislation and were following the guidelines correctly.
5.31 In other locations the police felt able to write the authorisation document and agree enforcement procedures on their own.
"I was aware of the Scottish Executive antisocial behaviour website but I basically had no occasion to seek [legal] clarification. All I did was look at the antisocial behaviour 2004 legislation and it was quite clear of the processes in each section. I took an interpretation from that." Police Inspector
5.32 In one location there was an exceptionally strong partnership between all relevant agencies. Initially the police approached the council solicitor (the local authority's antisocial behaviour team was not up and running at this point.) The council solicitor then arranged a multi-agency "case conference" where all partners met, the police made a report and then agencies considered the use of dispersal with the advice of the solicitor. A recommendation then went to the Superintendent who decided to authorise the dispersal notice based on the case conference recommendation.
Consultation with the Community
5.33 The official guidance says that consultation and discussion with community representatives should take place to discuss the possible use of dispersal powers. As in the case of consultation with local authorities, the police ultimately have the final decision whether or not to use the powers.
5.34 In dispersal locations, there had often been a long and established history of consultation at this level but the possibility of using new powers encouraged another series of interaction. In some locations public meetings were convened where local constituted groups and individual residents went along to express their views. These were often organised in conjunction with the local councillor, on other occasions the police arranged these meetings through residents associations. In one location the local councillor sent a letter explaining important information about dispersal powers, including potential benefits and causes for concern, to each residence in the affected area.
5..35 In areas where businesses were affected, the police visited and spoke to business owners individually. This was also the case in one of the locations where there were much fewer residents affected by the antisocial behaviour and it was practical for police to consult personally at each of the affected households.
5.36 In one of the focus groups convened for this research, some of the affected residents who were not heavily involved in local affairs felt that the consultation had taken place with community activists only and that other less-prominent members of the public were not included.
Police Protocol Documents
5.37 At the stage of authorising the dispersal powers, the police, often in consultation with antisocial behaviour units, established procedures for how they would act in the event of different circumstances: the treatment of under-16s, the handling of breaches and the dispersal of dispersal zone residents. The importance of police discretion in the application of the powers meant that police felt it was important to agree a strategy to help enforcement officers understand the procedures and apply consistency. In most locations, a desire for the powers to be a success led the police to make a decision to pro-actively use the powers fully. In practice this meant that they would disperse any group of people who were congregating for no apparent reason on the basis that they were potentially going to be involved in disorder. This strict approach was especially used during the initial period of many of the authorisations.
"If there was a group of 5/6 guys and we ask them "What are you up to?" and they say, "We are just going up to his house" and they have crisps and juice from the shop we would say "on you go then." There is no likelihood that you think they are going to cause bother, they have a purpose and they are going to a certain address. That is the element of discretion that police were told about and officers were instructed to use. But if they are hanging about for no apparent purpose and they could, if the police left, cause bother then they are the kind of group that would be dispersed." Police Sergeant, Knightswood
Directions to Disperse
5.38 One of the operational issues police faced in the preliminary stages was how to identify breaches of directions to disperse. In most cases the relevant officer passed on the name and date of birth of individuals dispersed to information officers who would enter the details onto the command and control databases. In the case of a subsequent direction to disperse, the officer would then check the individual's details against the records on the database to see if he or she was in breach of a direction to disperse that had been given in the previous 24 hours.
5.39 Sometimes after a shift change, one police force found that it was difficult for subsequent officers to know if individuals they saw in the designated area had received a previous direction to disperse. Police in one area said that they would in future consider providing officers with a rolling list of names of individuals who had received directions to disperse in the previous 24 hours.
5.40 Some police forces decided that they would issue notices to individuals when they were dispersed explaining the requirements of the direction. This was to ensure clarity and to make individuals aware of the legislation and potential penalties for breaching the direction. It was also used to prevent the individual, in the event of breach, from being able to claim in court that they were unclear about the requirements of the direction.
5.41 The police, in all locations, felt it was an important part of the dispersal strategy that they would arrest all breaches of dispersal powers. This was to help ensure that the powers worked as a deterrent.
Under 16s Protocols
5.42 Part of the preparatory work was ensuring that protocols were established concerning the policing of the powers and the potential effects on council services. This had a particular emphasis in some locations where the police were keen to make all relevant parties aware of the proposed powers.
"We had the social work and children's reporter to the panel before we started. We had a site visit and we took the reporter, the fiscal, ourselves and councillors up and walked around the area and basically met the people who were coming out … We linked in the whole way…everybody knew what part they had to play." Police Superintendent, Knightswood
5.43 Police also made decisions about how they would respond to breaches by under-16s. In some locations the police decided that on occasion of a breach, by an individual under 16, he or she would be taken to a police station where parents would be contacted and told about the breach as well as other details about the incident such as possession of alcohol. The police would then decide whether to report the offence to the Children's Reporter or the Procurator Fiscal.
5.44 In one location, the police decided with the local authority that they would take action against young people who were dispersed on more than one occasion, even when the two separate directions to disperse were complied with by the individual. In this event, the young person would receive a home visit with a police community officer who would inform the parents about the dispersal powers. If there were three or more directions to disperse during the 3-month period, the name of the young person would be passed to the antisocial behaviour unit who would then visit the young person and parents and initiate an Acceptable Behaviour Contract. Failure to sign up to or comply with an ABC would lead subsequently to a youth ASBO.
Exit Strategies
5.45 The police in dispersal locations were aware of the short-term nature of the powers and in consultation with the local authority agreed to run activities for young people towards the end of the authorisation periods to extend the effects of the dispersal period. This was seen as especially important in the areas where the perceived perpetrators were young people who lived in or near the dispersal zone. Often the police combined these services with a continued police presence in the area for 2-3 weeks.
5.46 These strategies took different forms but examples included several weeks of "twilight" sports following the conclusion of the powers, one-off events for people who had been dispersed during the dispersal operation and the development of mechanisms to involve young people in decision-making processes when the powers ended. These services typically lasted only for a short time due to staffing or funding limitations.
Summary
5.47 Police felt that there were risks attached to the authorisation of dispersal powers. The high profile nature of the powers puts the authorising officer into the media spotlight and police often felt that the trust of the community was at stake if the powers were seen to fail. Police in some of the more recently authorised dispersal locations were aware of the national coverage given to dispersal operations in other locations and newspaper and TV interviews where senior police officers had to defend their strategy. The 3-month duration of the powers also meant that this increased scrutiny and media interest in their work lasted for a sustained period.
5.48 As well as the risks there was also an acknowledgement that dispersal powers might be seen to run contrary to recent emphases in policing where preventative approaches and multi-agency "problem solving" meetings were beginning to become established more widely. Police often stated that there was no inherent contradiction between problem solving approaches alongside enforcement methods like dispersal powers but there was an acknowledgement of possible public perceptions of heavy-handedness and the use of dispersal powers as an admission of failure.
5.49 Possibly due to the novelty of the powers, their high profile nature and the perceived risks associated with using them, police took great care to ensure that they followed the procedures correctly. Attempts were made in all locations to ensure that preparation was as comprehensive as possible. This included visits to other areas where the powers had been used, meetings with antisocial behaviour officers and council lawyers, and the agreement of protocol agreements with relevant stakeholders.
5.50 On occasions where police faced difficulties in the consultation process or challenges/opposition from other stakeholders and members of the public, there was a demonstrated willingness on the part of police to take the lead and take responsibility for the problems they felt that they could use the powers to address.
5.51 In terms of the purely practical side of initiating dispersal powers, police officers often found the process of authorisation straightforward to understand and follow. They did however, commonly acknowledge the large investment of time involved in the preparatory work: consultation, publicity, coordination with partners and the briefing of officers.
"Whether we like it or not, there is a fair bit of work that goes into this, linking with other agencies and you have got to pull the agencies together and get them around the table. You've got to link in with your MSPs, your local councillors, leisure services, all these people are involved in it. It's getting everyone around the table, it is getting the thing kicked off and it is committing resources." Police Superintendent, Dennistoun
« Previous | Contents | Next »