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
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll