header-logo header-logo

10 January 2008 / Jill Lorimer
Issue: 7303 / Categories: Features , Criminal
printer mail-detail

Super ASBOs

A new crime fighting tool or unjustifiable incursion of liberty? asks Jill Lorimer

Serious crime prevention orders (SCPOs) were introduced in the Serious Crime Act 2007 (SCA 2007), Pt 1 on 30 October 2007. Dubbed “super ASBOs” by the media, these are civil orders which may be made independently of criminal proceedings against those suspected of involvement in serious crime. The orders will impose binding conditions restricting the activities of individuals or organisations. The aim is to prevent the commission of serious crime but there is widespread concern that any benefits will be at the cost of a significant invasion of liberty and that there are insufficient safeguards to prevent injustice.

 

SCPOs may be made by the High Court, upon the application of the director of public prosecutions, the director of revenue and customs prosecutions or the director of the Serious Fraud Office. Equally, they may be made by the crown court in respect of a person who has either been convicted of an offence in the crown court, or committed to the crown

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers drives further growth in its UK immigration team with new partner Sophie Barrett-Brown

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal invests in next generation of legal talent as specialist litigation practice grows

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips continues momentum in London with arrival of Catrina Smith

NEWS
Restrictions on workplace non-disclosure agreements could make settlements slower, more complex and more expensive when reforms expected in 2027 take effect
Private prosecutors face closer scrutiny under Crown Prosecution Service guidance designed to strengthen accountability and consistency when intervention is requested
Foreign states cannot necessarily claim immunity for cyber operations launched abroad against computers in Britain, following a divided Supreme Court ruling
Defendants who make unsupported complaints about their lawyers risk losing legal aid while confiscation proceedings continue without representation
Lawyers advising Russian clients face different sanctions restrictions across the UK, EU and US, despite their shared objective of increasing pressure on Russia
back-to-top-scroll