Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)

I want to concentrate on anti-social behaviour orders. The proposal is on reducing the burden of proof from the criminal justice system, where a reasonable doubt applies, to the civil burden of proof, where it is about the balance of probabilities. On his visit to the UK in November 2004 the Commissioner for Human Rights stated:

The proper evidential requirements and sensible control of what actually constitutes anti-social behaviour are essential, as ASBOs can bring their subjects literally a misplaced step away from the criminal justice system. Indeed ASBOs blur the boundaries between the civil and criminal justice systems and great care must consequently be taken to ensure the rights to a fair trial and liberty are respected. 42% of all ASBOs up to 2003 were breached. The concern is that the excessive use of ASBOs is more likely to exacerbate the anti-social behaviour and crime amongst youth than effectively prevent it and this is for two reasons. Firstly, ASBO breaches have resulted in large numbers of children being detained. 46% of young people received immediate custody upon conviction of a breach. The chair of the Youth Justice Board has conceded that the rise in the young offender population in custody in 2004 resulted mainly from breaches of ASBOs. Given the high reconviction conviction rates for detained juvenile offenders one wonders whether the detention of juveniles for non-criminal behaviour will not lead to more serious offences on release.

Much of what has been described as anti-social behaviour is criminal behaviour. Public order and damage to property offences already exist on the statute books. We need the personnel to pursue vandalism, damage to property and being drunk and disorderly. We have seen too many public relations exercises such as "zero-tolerance". This is yet another attempt to give the impression that something is being done. Again I quote the Commissioner for Human Rights:

One cannot but wonder, indeed, whether their purpose is not more to reassure the public that something is being done and better still, by local residents themselves, than the actual prevention of the anti-social behaviour itself.

I saw first hand what happened when by-laws sanctioning those who were causing a serious problem with drinking parties were introduced by Leixlip Town Council. The object was to reduce the problem. All that occurred was the creation of an additional stream of income and the local authority had to administer the system. A great administrative burden was placed on the local authority. It was found in the United Kingdom that it required a virtual army of administrative staff to process the orders, track offences and follow those who had breached the orders. There is a public service embargo preventing the recruitment of civilians to the Garda to do non-frontline work and it is being proposed to put trained police officers into offices to track ASBOs. This is madness.

I have seen excellent work done by junior liaison officers and good community policing. The problem is that there are insufficient resources. However, to obtain further Garda resources, there needs to be increased crime rates. Good policing is not just about detection rates, it is also about prevention. We need to approach this matter differently.

ASBO excesses have been well-publicised. Two notable examples include the serving of an ASBO on an 87 year old woman for being repeatedly sarcastic and on a 17 year old deaf girl for spitting. Orders tend to apply to those on the fringes of society and those with severe behavioural problems. We are trading away our civil liberties instead of allocating money for resources to deal with the problem.

See this speech in context