Legal academic Rebecca Roberts says on-the-spot penalties erode our liberties without making us safer

CAMDEN residents will undoubtedly be aware of the war being waged against anti-social behaviour and crime.
Curfews, dispersal zones, anti-social behaviour orders (Asbos), Acceptable Behaviour Contracts (ABCs) and now the Penalty Notice for Disorder (PND) – an on-the-spot fine for, what is loosely described as, ‘disorderly behaviour’.
April 1 marks the one-year anniversary of the national roll-out of the scheme but there has been very little public discussion about this seemingly innocuous addition to crime reduction tool-box. The Crime and Society Foundation believes this lack of public concern reflects a failure to appreciate the significance of the rapid escalation in the use of on-the-spot fines. Far from being innocuous, the system creates a new class of semi-criminal, who face being put on the fast track to arrest, prosecution and punishment.
PNDs cover a wide range of minor offences committed by anyone over 16 and can be issued by police, community support officers and other ‘accredited persons’ such as neighbourhood wardens. Figures published for April to September 2004 showed that 25 per cent of PNDs were issued by the Metropolitan Police and most fines were issued for either ‘behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress’ or alcohol-related disorder. The Home Office estimates that 57,607 PNDs were issued in the UK during 2004. These on-the-spot fines are presented as an excellent way of reducing police paperwork and time spent in court. It is also claimed that they help petty offenders to avoid receiving a criminal record and going through court.
Sounds like a win-win solution? Well, PNDs certainly look like an efficient way of dealing with petty offending and nuisance behaviour. The Home Office clearly thinks so, claiming that PNDs are a success and citing savings in police time.
However, rather than freeing up police resources to tackle more serious crime, what we are seeing is an increase in the policing of minor disorder. It is now far more likely that those who would previously have received a verbal warning will instead be drawn into the criminal justice system through the creation of a ‘semi-criminal record’. This is because – contrary to reassurances that payment of the fine does not constitute an admission of guilt, and that no criminal record will be created – for many PNDs police take DNA and fingerprints and add the details to the Police National Computer. The Home Office has confirmed these records can then be admissible in future court proceedings against the individual concerned.
We are not talking about serious or dangerous offenders, causing the most harm to our communities. PNDs are being targeted at either the drunk or the young and – as is often the case with anti-social behaviour orders – the most vulnerable members of the community.
Whilst reducing bureaucracy sounds appealing, in this case less bureaucracy also means less justice. In an environment where law enforcers are under pressure to meet targets, a ticking off will not count but a PND will. A target driven, ‘zero-tolerance’ approach can lead to a punitive atmosphere where the first response to a minor misdemeanour is punishment. The operation of the PND system occurs outside a court room and therefore without the checks which protect the innocent and vulnerable. There will be many who see no problem with surrendering some of their rights in the name of community safety and crime reduction but we must be wary of confusing a punishment with a solution.
At one level on-the-spot fines provide an indicator of police activity, but unfortunately they tell us nothing about whether the streets are safer or the needs of victims and the community have been met. The limited research published by the Home Office has provided no information about whether PNDs have an impact on crime or safety.
All of this leads to questions about whether PNDs are necessary, appropriate, proportionate and effective. PNDs operate outside the traditional realms of criminal justice and bypass key protections afforded to anyone accused of an offence. PNDs may provide quicker punishment, and more of it, but can we be sure they are making our streets safer?
• Rebecca Roberts is a research associate at the Crime and Society Foundation, King’s College London. For details see www.crimeandsociety.org.uk