The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

CHAPTER 6 USE OF THE POWERS

6.1 This chapter describes police activity in the dispersal locations during the 3-month dispersal periods. All information was taken from police command and control databases. Statistics on court disposals for offences with a charge proved are taken from the Scottish Executive court proceedings database. ⁴ In addition to the statistics, this section also provides explanatory remarks made by police officers.

Number of Dispersals/Persons Dispersed

6.2 Table 6.1 shows the number of directions to disperse given in each dispersal location and the number of separate individuals that were directed to disperse.

Table 6.1 Number of directions to disperse given by police

6.3 Hunter Square, Edinburgh was the location where the most directions to disperse were given out. A large number of the dispersals in the first dispersal period were also repeat dispersals to individuals who had been dispersed already during the 3-month period. There were not as many repeat dispersals in the second or third dispersal authorisations.

6.4 Generally more directions to disperse were given out in the geographically larger areas with relatively high populations such as Dennistoun, Knightswood, and Mid Calder. Dingwall dispersal zone covered a large geographical area but only a small residential area. Dispersal zones in Moffat, Lockerbie and St Andrew's and St Michael's Dumfries were small non-residential dispersal zones and only a relatively small number of people were dispersed from these locations.

6.5 In Aberdeen, the police made 62 dispersals in the first 2 months of the authorisation (48 in the first month, 14 in the second) and found that a combination of a strong police presence and the publicity attached to the dispersal designation dramatically reduced the behaviour to the extent that the problem was almost completely relieved.

6.6 Police in Dumfries, Sauchie and Knightswood reported a sharp fall in the numbers of people being dispersed after an initial period. The same effect was noticed in the two Dumfries locations where previous complainers said that the problem "just stopped" after the first few nights.

Breaches

Table 6.2 shows the number of breaches in each location.

Table 6.2 Dispersal Breaches

6.7 Police did not arrest any individuals at all for breach in 8 of the 14 dispersal authorisations. In the other 6 dispersal zones the breach rate ranged from 3.2% to 9.7%. When all dispersal breaches are taken into account, there was an overall breach rate of 4.4%.

6.8 Police in each location were asked about compliance and said that they felt people generally obeyed because the powers were an "unknown" and a step up from previous powers. In some of the areas where young people were the perceived perpetrators this was thought to be an especially important factor. In these locations police thought that the consequences for the breach of a direction to disperse played an important factor; young people did not want to receive a criminal record.

6.9 In contrast, the police responsible for covering the Hunter Square dispersal zone said that the perpetrators arrested for breach were people they knew and who had previous experience of police contact. This familiarity with police attention was thought to explain the higher breach number of breaches in Edinburgh in the initial period. In many of the cases of breach, these people were arrested for other offences at the same time (such as breach of bail conditions, breach of ASBO, breach of the peace and assault.)

6.10 Police arrested an individual for breach of a direction to disperse, early on in the first Hunter Square operation. This charge was proved in court and the offender received a jail sentence in the first few days that the power was used. Police believe that this event made potential perpetrators aware of the severity of the powers and helped to prevent other breaches. This explanation was also used to explain why there were many fewer arrests in the second dispersal period and none at all in the third.

Court Disposals for Breaches

6.11 There were 38 arrests for breach of directions to disperse. As of August 2007, 15 of these charges have been proved in court. Five of the arrests related to breaches by under-16s. These breaches were referred to the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration, the body responsible for reviewing cases that relate to under-16s. Due to protocols on disclosure it is not possible to find out what happened to these individuals after their cases were referred.

6.12 Information obtained from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service suggests that 4 of the remaining charges are pending and the others were marked for either non-court alternatives such as warnings or were closed as "no further proceedings."

6.13 All of the custodial sentences were for breaches at Hunter Square, Edinburgh and were given to offenders aged 30-52. Of these 7 sentences 2 were for one month, 2 were for 2 months, 3 were for one month and one was for 6 months. This data relates to the total length of sentence imposed so where more than one charge is involved there may be a cumulative penalty e.g. 3 months imprisonment for charge A, plus 2 months (to be served consecutively) for charge B, with a total sentence length of 5 months. It is also possible for courts to impose an additional element of sentence where an offence had been aggravated by having been committed while the offender was on bail.

6.14 Many police officers who were interviewed for this study said that they were unaware of action taken on individual cases once they had reported them to the Procurator Fiscal. In Edinburgh one police officer who was interviewed said he was surprised by the general severity of sentences for what they perceived as comparatively small crimes. This police officer believed that the court's behaviour was impacted by the high profile nature of the powers and by the fact that antisocial behaviour was at the forefront of the political agenda.

"We got quite astounding support from the courts to send them to jail like that for a couple of months, especially when you look at more serious crimes where people are getting small fines, or community service." Police Inspector

6.15 The following table shows offences with a charge proved under dispersal legislation. ⁶

Table 6.3 Disposals for proved charges of breach directions to disperse

Police Recorded Incidents

6.16 This section is based on police records of incidents recorded by police as a result of public complaints and police detection for the periods before, during and after the dispersal powers were used.

6.17 It is important to bear in mind some of the difficulties evaluating the effectiveness of high profile police operations by comparing the numbers of police recorded incidents before, during and after operations.

6.18 First, the focused attention on the operation, particularly if there is widespread media coverage, possibly makes members of the public more aware of disorder and more likely to report incidents in the knowledge that police have extra resources and will give added attention. A simple count of calls to the police also does not reveal information about the severity of behaviour that is being reported; it is possible for there to be reduced public disorder but also more calls logged by police.

6.19 Second, for this analysis, the 3-month periods before and after dispersal periods were considered leading to an analysis of recorded incidents over a 9-month period. Many factors can affect the volume of calls taken over this period including seasonal factors such as behavioural changes in the summer and winter and holiday periods.

6.20 Third, calls are logged on command and control databases for policing rather than reporting purposes and not always in categories that make it easy to make comparisons. Complaints are categorised at the time of entry and a nuisance call relating to group antisocial behaviour in a neighbourhood may, for example, be categorised as "youth nuisance", "noise", "environmental damage", "road traffic annoyance" or another category that the police officer logging the call feels is most relevant. These categories are also not consistent across police forces and it is common for police to use different headings to categorise behaviour. For this research police provided data based on calls logged relevant to an assessment of dispersal powers. Categories were chosen by police officers/analysts and there is a complete list of included categories in the Appendix.

6.21 Despite these caveats, there is evidence that the powers were effective at reducing antisocial behaviour incidents. There were large reductions in incidents in 8 of the 14 authorised dispersal zones. The largest reductions in were in Dennistoun, Dingwall and Hunter Square where there were reductions of over 50% (55%, 55% and 52% respectively.) In Sauchie there was a reduction of 33% and Knightswood a reduction 19%.

6.22 In Hunter Square there were 42 incidents in the 3 months before the first authorisation of dispersal powers and 20 incidents in the dispersal period. This pattern of reduction was felt in all three authorisations of the powers in Hunter Square. In Dingwall, there were 44 incidents in the 3 months before dispersal and 20 incidents during the authorisation.

6.23 In Knightswood recorded incidents fell from 434 in the 3 months before dispersal to 171 in the 3 months of dispersal powers. In Sauchie the incidents fell from 211 to 171 and in Dennistoun from 539 to 239.

6.24 The numbers of incidents in four of the other, smaller, areas are too few to provide meaningful analysis. In these locations, despite mixed evidence of effectiveness, slight increases in incidents for the dispersal period compared to the 3 months before dispersal in St Andrew's (from 7 to 10), St Michael's (from 7 to 8) and Moffat (from 2 to 5) and a slight reduction in Lockerbie (from 4 to 3), there is limited meaning that can be attached to the figures because the numbers are so small.

6.25 Two of the dispersal powers had apparently little or no success as expressed in police incident logs: the second dispersal authorisation in Aberdeen and in Mid Calder.

6.26 In Aberdeen, incidents fell from 49 to 39 for the 3 months of dispersal powers compared to the 3 months previously. The first authorisation of the powers was followed immediately by another authorisation and the 39 recorded incidents rose to 74 in the 3 months of the designation. The police said that the apparent increase was due to increased police patrols operating within the area detecting and reporting incidents to the Force Control Room who added the calls to the system rather than an increase in calls originating from members of the public.

6.27 In Mid Calder, there were 48 incidents recorded in the 3 months before dispersal powers and 51 incidents recorded in the 3 months of the dispersal period. The police in Mid Calder said that 15 incidents were received on the last two evenings of the dispersal period when there was an organised act of celebration by local young people that distorted the true nature of the reduction in incidents.

6.28 In 7 of the dispersal authorisations, the reduction in incidents was maintained in the 3-month period after the powers had finished. In Hunter Square (first and third authorisations), and Knightswood the number of calls reduced even further after the powers had finished. In most locations however there was a slight increase, although not a back to pre-dispersal levels.

"For that 3 month dispersal we have now had an effect lasting for 6 months" Police Sergeant, Knightswood

6.29 In interviews for this research police explained that complaints received from members of the public during and after the dispersal periods were less serious than those received previously. This was possibly because residents were reporting more trivial incidents in the belief that police were more likely to address them.

Police Perceptions of Effectiveness

6.30 Without exception, the police viewed the dispersal powers as a successful means of providing relief for the local community for the period where they were enforced. In many locations the police emphasised the dramatic and unexpected nature of the relief that the powers achieved.

6.31 Typically it took a short period for the powers to have an effect and in most locations the majority of breaches took places within the first few days or weekends of the designated period. After this, the police found that they were attending to far less incidents of disorder and were receiving positive feedback from members of the public about the difference the powers had made.

"…from the first couple of weekends…we didn't require the resourcing levels - we still had [the power] every night but there was nobody to disperse." Police Superintendent

6.32 Some police officers attributed the success of the powers to the ability of the police to be proactive in tackling antisocial behaviour. Members of the public had previously complained about police response time and the fact that police often could not take action if the perpetrators had moved on by the time of their arrival at the scene of a reported incident.

"This wording of "likely to behave in an antisocial manner" gave us the power to disperse them in groups of 2 or more, which was great." Police Inspector, Edinburgh

"This is a really important power because we don't have to wait for it to happen. We can stop things before they start." Police Superintendent, Dingwall

6.33 Police also believed that the power allowed them to prevent escalations of antisocial behaviour and to stop crowd numbers getting out of control. Instead of facing a situation where the police had to tackle problems being caused by a large group of individuals, police could disperse smaller groups of people throughout the course of the day or evening and manage the size of the groups before the number became overwhelming.

"Several of the ones who were dispersed were decent law abiding people but the fact that they were there allowed other people to see them there and it caused this magnet effect." Police Sergeant

Dispersals of Young People and Under-16s

6.34 The police found the novelty of the powers to be a powerful means of preventing behaviour. At the beginning of dispersal operations in three separate locations, young people (although not under 16s), breached the powers on a weekend evening and, following the Lord Advocate's guidelines on liberation, were kept in custody until they could appear in court at the next possible opportunity on Monday morning. The police believed that young people wanted to test the powers and did not expect them to be enforced. Tough responses to breach enable them to convince the local community that the powers were strong and that repercussions for breach were severe.

6.35 In another location the police were aware that groups were congregating on the periphery of the dispersal area boundaries because they were worried about the possibility of a £2,500 fine or a prison sentence if they breached a direction to disperse.

6.36 The police said that they felt an effect of the powers was that parents prevented their children from going out in dispersal areas during the times when the powers were enforced.

6.37 In one of the areas where youth disorder was the source of the problems, a police officer suggested that disorder was heavily influenced by a "cohort" effect. As young people moved through school their friendship groups established norms of behaviour influenced by, and in reaction to, the behaviour of other school years. The places where they would socialise would become "their" place. The behaviour as observed by local residents and the police would change each year and would be influenced by ringleaders in each group. Dispersal powers were said to have had a disruptive effect on these behaviour patterns.

Displacement

6.38 One of the main concerns for police forces was that they would simply move the problem from one area into another residential area. To counter this effect the police often designed the dispersal boundaries so that they would incorporate neighbouring areas.

6.39 On other occasions displacement to non-residential areas was an intended outcome for the powers. On these occasions the police recognised the fact that the groups were unlikely to disperse and go to their homes and, through the design of the dispersal area boundaries, attempted to manage the displacement of the group. The dispersal zone boundaries were designed so that the problem group could only move from where they had traditionally gathered to peripheral areas of the dispersal zone where the problem group would cause less or no annoyance to residents. Examples of this are Aberdeen where there are areas further away where fewer residents would be affected by loud car noise and Mid Calder where there are other large spaces away from houses.

"I would say to them, go down to [___], or down to [___]…go down and congregate where there's no members of the public being intimidated by your conduct." Police Sergeant

6.40 Displacement was a greater concern in the areas where the dispersal zone bordered other residential areas or where there were other small villages/housing estates/towns nearby. In the locations police said that their own intelligence had shown that there was not a corresponding increase in disorder in any of the adjacent areas.

6.41 Police carried out analysis of command and control data throughout the operations to see if there had been a rise in complaints of antisocial behaviour in neighbouring areas. Police and other officials reported little or no displacement in Aberdeen, Dingwall, Dumfries, Hunter Square, Knightswood, Lockerbie, Moffat and Sauchie.

6.42 Detailed police analysis in Dennistoun however, found that there had been a dramatic increase in disorder in a neighbouring location while the dispersal powers were ongoing. Extra police patrols in this area suggested that only 2 out of 29 individuals stopped were resident of the dispersal area and the police concluded that individuals intent on antisocial behaviour were staying in their own location rather than travelling to Dennistoun to cause antisocial behaviour. Analysis of other areas near Dennistoun showed that there had been little or no displacement of behaviour.

6.43 Anecdotal evidence from residents and business representatives in some of the locations suggested that there was some displacement. It is not possible to know, based on the analysis performed by police, the extent of this displacement or if there had been a net reduction in annoyance over a wider geographical area.

Summary

6.44 Police believed that dispersal powers had advantages over Acceptable Behaviour Contracts and Antisocial Behaviour Orders for tackling group antisocial behaviour. Whilst these are thought to be useful for tackling the antisocial behaviour of groups where there are clear ringleaders, they are not as useful for most situations where group congregations are spontaneous and made up of large numbers of individuals.

6.45 The incident statistics suggest that dispersal powers have had an impact on incidents recorded by police. There are also examples of locations where this reduction continued for an additional period after the powers ended.

6.46 Police interviewees commonly said that they were surprised by how powerful dispersal powers were in providing instant relief on a large scale. The powers were often credited with "breaking the pattern of behaviour." The belief was that group behaviour had become established over a period until it became a simple habit. By disrupting this pattern and forcing the groups to change their behaviour they were able to challenge the status quo. This was an especially common view in the dispersal areas where the groups were made up of young people and where they were not as attached to particular features of the area.

6.47 In some areas this effect was not as prevalent. In Aberdeen the Beach Boulevard esplanade was felt to perfectly suit the needs of young drivers looking for a central location with street lighting, parking spaces and relatively quiet roads. In this location the choice of location was felt to be more of a determined choice rather than chosen by accident and habit. This was also noticed in some of the other locations where young drivers gathered and Hunter Square where unique features of the Square appear to appeal to the groups who choose to gather there.

« Previous | Contents | Next »