header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
10 January 2008 / Jill Lorimer
Issue: 7303 / Categories: Features , Criminal
printer mail-detail

Super ASBOs

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

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

Read All
Sponsored by
NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: When post-breach events rewrite damages claims
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
NLJ this week: Supreme Court redraws unfair prejudice rules
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
NLJ this week: ‘Joe Donor’ ruling exposes dangers of unregulated conception
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
NLJ this week: CILEX warns Mazur ruling must spark reform
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Conditional job offers carry hidden risks for employers
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll