The Crime and Policing Bill will increase penalties for ‘busybody’ offences from £100 to £500 (clause 4).
On-the-spot penalties for Public Spaces Protection Orders (PSPOs) and Community Protection Notices (CPNs) are currently issued at a rate of over 20,000 a year (in 2023 there were 19,000 FPNs for PSPOs, and 1,200 for CPNs). This price hike will therefore affect substantial numbers of people.
These orders are issued on a low benchmark and have been subject to widespread misuse, including bans on gathering in groups or sleeping in public, and individuals banned from looking at their neighbours or ordered to cut their grass.
Thousands of people have been issued with penalties for offenses such as ‘idling’, feeding the birds, having a messy garden, or riding their bike in the wrong area (in one 6-month period, 1,472 penalties were issued to people cycling in Grimsby).
Our FOI data from 2023 shows that 75% of PSPO penalties are issued by private enforcement companies, which means they have a direct incentive to issue as many penalties as possible.
Generally these companies are not paid but receive around 80-85% of penalty income (see our Campaign Against Fining for Profit). This means that they must issue a certain number of fines per day in order to cover their costs, and more if they are going to make a profit.
Increasingly these private enforcement companies also process appeals for councils, and even prepare court documents. With the financial incentive to punish, justice suffers: ‘appeals’ systems are often thinly disguised attempts to persuade the person to pay the fine, rather than an impartial process.
The main result of Clause 4 will therefore be more people being given even heftier penalties by private enforcement companies, for innocuous or everyday actions, which they are unable to appeal.
An important amendment by the Liberal Democrat peer Tim Clement Jones will seek to ban fining for profit for ‘busybody’ offenses. This inserts into ‘clause 4’ the stipulation:
“(5)For the purposes of this section, any authorised person or company issuing fixed penalty notices under the provisions listed in subsection (6) must not receive, directly or indirectly, any financial benefit that is contingent upon—
(a) the issuing of a fixed penalty notice, or
(b) the number or value of fixed penalty notices issued.
The amendment defines a financial benefit as:
(a) any commission, bonus, incentive payment, or performance-related remuneration;
(b) any benefit provided under a contract, arrangement, or understanding that links remuneration to enforcement outcomes;
(c) any financial profit accrued by an employer;
(d) any non-monetary benefit prescribed by regulations.
This would clearly prohibit any ‘payment per fine’ contract. The provision would be enforced by the threat of revoking authorisation:
(8) Any employer or person found to be in breach of subsection (5) may have their arrangements, accreditation or authorisation revoked by the chief officer of police or relevant local authority.”
This is a very important amendment, which sets the standard in terms of what a ban on ‘fining for profit’ might look like. It will be debated in the House of Lords report stage on Wednesday 25 February.
- Other important report stage amendments focus on Respect Orders: one amendment seeks to increase the standard for issuing a Respect Order; another to gain a right of appeal for Respect Orders; to carry out an independent review prior to the issuing of any new ‘anti-social behaviour’ powers; and to require an annual report into the use and effectiveness of these powers.