Police and courts to get new injunction powers to control gangs

A new power of injunction to prevent gang-related violence will be introduced in the Policing and Crime Bill. The new power should become operational by April 2010.

The proposed new injunction would enable a court to impose a range of restrictions or requirements on an individual such as:

• Not entering a specified place, for example, the neighbourhood that the gang regards as 'its' territory, or the area where the gang has offended because gangs' 'power bases' are partly the result of everyone in their territory knowing them and being frightened of them;
• Not being with named members of a gang - gangs are able to intimidate people because they operate in significant numbers, alone gang members are much less able to threaten or commit violence;
• Not using or threatening to use violence;
• Not using the internet to encourage or facilitate violence; and
• Not wearing particular items of clothing such as gang colours or balaclavas which prevent identification.

Alongside this, the Government is proposing that the court should have the power to require those given an injunction to take part in positive activities such as community outreach programmes or mediation sessions between rival gangs to ensure that they are provided with alternatives to their gang lifestyle.

Birmingham City Council pioneered the use of similar injunctions under s.222 of the Local Government Act 1972 to tackle the violent behaviour often associated with gangs, obtaining some 30 interim injunctions between August and end-December 2007. This approach was a coordinated one which combined intensive policing, deployment of a mediation service, and interventions aimed at supporting individuals to leave gangs.

While it is not possible to say that injunctions were the sole driver for change, a number of the affected parts of Birmingham experienced a reduction in firearms incidents, woundings and robberies during the period that injunctions were in place.

After January 2008, when injunctions were no longer available, there was an increase in firearms incidents, woundings and robberies in key affected areas. Examples of success include:

• In the Handsworth / Lozells / Newtown areas, the level of robberies in the four months prior to the injunctions averaged 55 per month compared with 33 per month while the injunctions were in place. After injunctions were removed this rose again to 48.
• In Aston / Nechells, there was an average of 11 firearms incidents in the 4 months preceding the orders compared with 4 for the period the orders were in place. After the court judgment, this figure rose to 9 in March.
• In the city centre, firearms usage dropped from 8 in July 2007 to 1 in September 2007. Again, after inunctions were removed, there was then a rise leading to a peak of 9 incidents in May 2008.