2nd opinion: Justice takes time

I recently heard about a meeting between the police and a community group that was meant to celebrate a reduction in burglaries. The police were told that burglaries had reduced because people were now too afraid to go out at night.

This gels with the latest British Crime Survey, in which 32% of respondents cited teenagers hanging around in the street as a big problem.

The white paper on antisocial behaviour, released last week, reflects these feelings by declaring that antisocial behaviour is at the foundation of insecurity in today's communities.

The circular to Labour members obtained by The Independent last week would seem to indicate that the issue is also at the foundation of insecurity at the ballot box.

Once again, the definition of antisocial behaviour has been stretched to its limits, now including: "Noisy neighbours who ruin the lives of those around them, crack houses run by drug dealers, drunken 'yobs' taking over town centres, people begging by cashpoints, abandoned cars, litter and graffiti, young people using airguns to threaten and intimidate or people using fireworks as weapons."

By using such a definition, the white paper is proposing measures that are as tough on noisy neighbours and nuisance children as they are on drugs and violence. This leaves us with a so-called "anti-poverty agenda" that proposes the removal of means-tested benefits and assured tenancies and evicts families from social housing. At the same time, it will increase the numbers deemed to be intentionally homeless and crack down on begging.

True, the report does make important and sensitive links between antisocial behaviour, domestic violence, substance abuse, and mental ill-health. But some sections are really quite insensitive: the paragraph linking the phrases "chaotic families" and "multiple partners" is almost offensive.

Putting all that to one side for the moment, I would like to focus on the issues related to mediation.

The report says: "When people break the rules, there must be consequences for them: consequences that are swift, proportionate and that change the pattern of their behaviour."

If someone were going to take away your money, home or liberty, wouldn’t you want them to prove your guilt fairly?

But when we look at the standards of evidence required by an antisocial behaviour order, let alone a fixed penalty notice, how sure can we be about the truth behind alleged breaches? If someone were going to take away your money, home or liberty, wouldn't you want them to prove your guilt fairly and beyond all doubt? To do otherwise is asking Justice to remove her blindfold and place it on one side of the balance she holds.

Trying to prove who is right or wrong will always take a fair amount of time, and rightly so. But the report cites an interim ASBO being granted without even notifying the person concerned – they were even subsequently locked up as a result. Swift, yes, but fair? Interventions that do not ascribe blame can be both swift and fair at a fraction of the cost, and do far more for community cohesion at the same time.

Furthermore, the report proposes that automatic reporting restrictions on orders made on convictions in the youth court will be removed. I defy anyone to argue reasonably that this level of public humiliation of our children is proportionate to their alleged misbehaviour.

As for changing the pattern of their behaviour, I have written in numerous articles about how mediation successfully enables "problem neighbours" to change their behaviour. But the real change in behaviour arising from these proposals will be found with the complainants.

The head of Manchester's nuisance strategy team, Bill Pitt, admits that their "determined" approach has led to more tenants coming forward when they see the results. In the 48 hours since the publication of the report, I have already had two calls from clients asking if they can abandon their successfully mediated agreements and get their neighbours fined instead.

Maybe complaints that are more valid will be brought forward. But I guarantee you that along with those will come far more numerous complaints asking you to fine a neighbour because of a crying baby, for example, or take away the TV of someone whose hearing is impaired.

The nearest this report gets towards acknowledging the role of mediation is with the vaguely defined idea of "community justice centres" that will deal with low-level antisocial behaviour. I will be interested to see how this idea develops, but it does seem to assume that mediation can only apply to a fraction of the issues this report addresses.