Understanding the policing practices associated with Civil Preventive Orders and Notices

There has been a growing reliance on legal frameworks outside of the traditional criminal law within England and Wales. One such development has been the increasing creation and expanding scope of civil preventive orders and notices to regulate various sub-criminal (Anti-Social Behaviour) and criminal behaviour (Violence Against Women and Girls) (Ashworth & Zedner, 2014). Based on a two-step legal process, these powers allow the regulation of behaviour not covered by traditional criminal law through the imposition of positive and prohibitive requirements on a recipient, often based on lower civil standards of evidence. However, where the recipient breaches the imposed conditions, they commit a criminal offence, which is punishable by up to five years imprisonment. Hence, policymakers are keen to introduce these powers to manage any perceived growing risk to the public despite limited evaluation of their usage, effectiveness, or legal and moral limits. The legal features replicate early versions of these powers, such as the power to bind a person over to keep the peace and the Anti-Social Behaviour Order (ASBO). Nonetheless, they have grown in scope and the behaviour addressed over the past few decades. Therefore, the following mixed methods ethnographic study provides the first frontline multi-order and notice analysis of current policing practices, drawing on over 100 hours of ethnographic observations, sixteen semi-structured interviews and various qualitative and quantitative secondary data from a single police constabulary. The findings of this study reveal concerns regarding the powers' overall Proportionality, Appropriateness and Effectiveness (PAE). Due to policy weaknesses, police officers must act as policy entrepreneurs on the frontline, creating informal processes and databases to navigate through the process haphazardly. Significant duplication exists between the various powers, making their most proportionate, appropriate and effective use challenging. Consequently, this thesis provides seventeen policy, practice, and research recommendations based on the combined ‘PAE Appraisal Model for Preventive Powers’ to explore how compliance with human rights and justice ideals can aid best practice.