Recent news reports suggest that Enfield Council has become the third local authority in the UK to obtain a gang injunction since the power to apply for them was brought in at the start of this year. This post looks at gang injunctions and considers whether they are likely to be an effective method of preventing gang-related violence.
What are gang injunctions?
Gang injunctions (also known as “gangbos”) were first introduced in the Policing and Crime Act 2009 (PCA 2009) and were intended to act as a tool for local authorities and the police to tackle incidents of gang-related violence (for more information, see the government guidance).
Gangbos are civil in nature but with the primary aims of:
- Preventing the respondent from engaging in, or encouraging or assisting, gang-related violence.
- Protecting the respondent from gang-related violence.
As gangbos are a civil penalty granted by county courts, local authorities and police must be able to prove “on the balance of probabilities” (the civil standard of proof) that the respondent was engaging in gang-related violence. Gangbos can last for up to two years. Breach of a gangbo however, must be proved to the criminal standard but will be dealt with as a civil contempt of court, punishable by a prison sentence of up to two years, or an unlimited fine. In comparison, ASBOs are also civil orders with a criminal penalty for breach but applicants must prove “beyond reasonable doubt” (criminal standard of proof) that the respondent had acted in an anti-social manner.
Gangbos are intended to tackle more serious behaviour and violence than anti-social behaviour orders (ASBOs) and are also currently only available for those aged 18 or over (although a pilot scheme for 14-17 year olds is intended later in 2011 as provided for in section 34 of the Crime and Security Act 2010).
So, what is a gang?
Section 34(5) of the PCA 2009 defines gang-related violence as:
“Violence or a threat of violence which occurs in the course of, or is otherwise related to, the activities of a group that:
a) consists of at least 3 people;
b) uses a name, emblem or colour or has any other characteristic that enables its members to be identified by others as a group; and
c) is associated with a particular area.”
A potential problem for local authorities applying for gangbos is likely to be proving on the balance of probabilities that a respondent’s violent activities are gang-related and are not just violence per se. In order to satisfy this, those applying for gangbos will need to be fully aware of the extent of any gang-related issues in their area and more importantly that particular individual’s gang involvement, which could be an evidential nightmare.
What can they involve?
Gangbos can be both prohibitory and require positive action, for example, requiring the respondent to take part in mentoring schemes in order to try and encourage them to break away from their gang and associated behaviour.
The first gangbo
On 31 January 2011, the Home Office announced that the relevant sections of the PCA 2009 had come into force and local authorities were able to apply for gang injunctions against those who has been involved in gang-related violence.
In March 2011, Southwark Council obtained the first gang injunction, which prevented the respondent from:
- Entering a large area of Peckham.
- Mixing with more than two other people anywhere in Southwark.
- Associating with other known gang members in the borough.
The injunction also prevented the respondent from producing, promoting or appearing in any music video which could encourage violence. However, press reports suggest that the respondent is intending to appeal against the injunction on human rights grounds.
Enfield’s gangbo
In June 2011, Enfield Council obtained a gangbo against DM, a gang member affiliated to a number of gangs in north London, such as “Shankstarz”, “Young Dem Africans” and “Camp” locally known as the “Green Gang” because green was their gang colour.
The gang injunction:
- Removes DM from his “turf”.
- Prevents DM from wearing green.
- Prevents DM from featuring in any threatening audio or visual material uploaded onto the internet (such as YouTube) or that makes reference to gang affiliations.
On 28 July 2011, DM was found guilty of having breached his gangbo seven times in the last four months. The county court found him guilty and sentenced him to two months’ imprisonment for each breach (a total of 14 months), however, the sentence was suspended for two years.
Useful or useless?
Take up of gangbos seems to have been quite slow if, as reported, only three have been applied for in the last six months. However, this was something that was recognised at the time that they were introduced, with Home Office Minister James Brokenshire stating that the government “was not expecting huge numbers” of gang injunctions to be issued, but they would help to “to break gang culture” in certain areas.
The question that remains however, is whether gangbos will be more effective than ASBOs bearing in mind that Home Office figures suggest that between 1999 and 2009, over half of all ASBOs have been breached. In fact, in February 2011, the government consulted on new ways of tackling anti-social behaviour instead of ASBOs, which it recognised were not working and were too confusing and expensive to administer. If ASBOs which deal with low level anti-social behaviour are not being complied with then it is arguable that neither will gangbos which are supposed to tackle even more serious behaviour.
The case of DM also brings the effectiveness of the gangbo into question, he breached the terms of his gangbo on multiple occasions but despite this was only given a sentence of two months imprisonment per breach, which was suspended. It seems unlikely that DM’s case is unusual and an indication therefore that the gangbo may not be as much as a deterrent as originally intended.
PLC Public Sector is currently working on a suite of documents dealing with anti-social behaviour, which it hopes to publish shortly.