Youth Justice News
| Author | Tim Bateman |
| DOI | 10.1177/1473225419851988 |
| Published date | 01 August 2019 |
| Date | 01 August 2019 |
| Subject Matter | News |
851988YJJ0010.1177/1473225419851988Youth JusticeBateman
news2019
News
Youth Justice
2019, Vol. 19(2) 170 –181
Youth Justice News
© The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
https://doi.org/10.1177/1473225419851988
DOI: 10.1177/1473225419851988
journals.sagepub.com/home/yjj
Tim Bateman
New Measures to Address ‘Serious Youth Violence’
Introduced in England and Wales as Part of the
‘Strongest Possible Response’
In England and Wales, the issue of serious youth violence, and knife crime in particular,
has received considerable attention in the recent period, leading to Theresa May, the Prime
Minister, hosting a 4-day ‘serious youth violence summit’ in early April 2019. According
to Sajid Javid, the Home Secretary, the summit was an indication of the government’s
concern in relation to the ‘recent rise’ in such offending, which he maintained required
‘the strongest possible response’ delivered in the form of a multi-agency, ‘public health’
approach.
Among the measures announced were the following:
The establishment of a ministerial taskforce on serious youth violence to be chaired
by the Prime Minister;
£100 million additional funding in 2019/2020, most of which will be made available
to Police and Crime Commissioners in the seven police force areas with the highest
levels of serious violence, which in combination account for around 70 per cent of all
knife crime in England and Wales;
A public consultation on a new legal duty on public bodies to ensure that they work
together to protect young people at risk of becoming involved in knife crime; and
An expansion in police stop and search powers.
The latter concerns a relaxation to the guidance in relation to the exercise of section 60
of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act, which allows police to stop and search any-
one in a designated area in which serious violence is anticipated without any grounds for
Corresponding author:
Tim Bateman, School of Applied Social Studies, University of Bedfordshire, University Square, Luton LU1 3JU, UK.
Email: tim.bateman@beds.ac.uk
Bateman
171
Table 1. Stop and searches under section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act: all ages –
2010/2011 to 2017/2018.
Year
Number of section
Arrests for offensive weapons as
60 searches
a proportion of searches (%)
2010/2011
62,429
0.4
2011/2012
46,973
0.4
2012/2013
5346
0.9
2013/2014
3909
1.0
2014/2015
1061
0.8
2015/2016
970
2.7
2016/2017
631
2.7
2017/2018
2501
2.8
suspicion in respect of the individual searched. The relaxation reduces the authority
required to authorise the use of section 60 to the level of inspector; it also lowers the
threshold for such authorisation from a reasonable belief that serious violence will occur
to a belief that it may occur. The new provisions will apply for a 12-month period in the
first instance, in the same seven police force areas as will benefit from increased
funding.
An increased resort to stop and search is not uncontroversial. Critics note that it repre-
sents a clear reversal of the government’s position in 2014 when Theresa May, then Home
Secretary, called for greater police accountability in the use of stop and search powers,
leading to the imposition of the conditions which are now to be relaxed. Liberty, a national
human rights charity, points out that Black people are 8 times more likely to be targets of
stop and search than their White counterparts, rising to 14 times more likely where the
power is used without suspicion.
Government statistics show that there has been a considerable decline in the use of
section 60 searches since the turn of the decade from 62,429 in 2010/2011 to 2501 in
2017/2018, a fall of 95 per cent. However, as shown in Table 1, the most recent year for
which figures are available showed a sharp rise of almost 300 per cent over the previous
12 months. The table also shows that the rate of arrests for offensive weapons, as a pro-
portion of the total searches conducted, is extremely low but tends to increase as the
number of searches falls, suggesting that targetting improves when the power is used
less frequently. (Figures are not disaggregated for age so the specific pattern for chil-
dren cannot be established, but young people are overrepresented among those stopped
by the police.)
A further measure designed to address the issue of knife crime is contained within the
Offensive Weapons Bill currently before Parliament. Part 2 of the Bill provides for the
introduction of a ‘knife crime prevention order’ (KCPO) available for individuals aged 12
years or older, though civil proceedings, where the court is satisfied on the balance of
probabilities that
•• On at least two occasions in the relevant period, that person had a bladed article
with them without good reason in a public place or on educational premises; and
172
Youth Justice 19(2)
•• Such an order is necessary to protect the public or to prevent the person from com-
mitting further knife-related offences.
An order will also be available in the criminal court, on conviction, where the offence
involves violence or the use of a bladed article and the court considers that an order is
required to prevent further similar offences or for public protection. In either case, where
the subject of the application is a child, the court must consult with the local youth offend-
ing team before imposing an order.
The effect of the order is to impose requirements and prohibitions on the individual that
are deemed by the court necessary to address the concerns that led to its imposition, for a
period between 6 months and 2 years. The prohibitions in particular appear similar to
those associated with the anti-social behaviour order (ASBO) (subsequently replaced by
civil injunctions and criminal behaviour orders) in that they will be able to prohibit the
individual from specified geographical locations or associating with named individuals.
The positive requirements, on the other hand, can include a curfew. As with the ASBO,
although the order is civil, breach of any requirement or prohibition is a criminal offence,
which can attract a custodial sentence of up to 2 years in the case of a child.
These proposals have also been subject to criticism. The Standing Committee for Youth
Justice and Prison Reform Trust’s joint briefing on KCPOs, published in March 2019,
points out that the orders have not been subject to any meaningful consultation, with no
input from key youth justice stakeholders such as the Youth Justice Board, the Children’s
Commissioner, the Association of Youth Offending Team managers or children’s services.
The briefing argues that there is no evidence that the orders will have the desired effect of
reducing youth knife crime and that they have the potential to:
be net-widening, labelling, disproportionately impact BAME communities, and impose more
criminal sanctions on vulnerable children and young people.
The briefing expresses concern that breach of the order will be common, leading to an
increase in the number of children in custody. Certainly, high breach rates were a feature
of ASBOs, with government data showing that, of the 8710 orders imposed on children
between 2000 and 2013, 5980 (69%) resulted in a conviction for breach and 37 per cent
of breaches resulted in a custodial sentence.
It is important to note, in any event, that the extent of the rise in youth violence and
knife crime shown in government data is less marked than some of the policy debates
might suggest. According to figures published by the Youth Justice Board and Ministry of
Justice in...
To continue reading
Request your trial