Sussex Police commissioner slammed for 'soft approach' on yobs

Sussex Police and Crime Commissioner Katy Bourne Sussex Police and Crime Commissioner Katy Bourne

Sussex’s police commissioner has been criticised for supporting softer punishments for antisocial yobs.

Police and crime commissioner Katy Bourne has said she would like to see antisocial behaviour orders replaced with community punishments that would see offenders spared criminal records.

However, opponents have condemned Mrs Bourne’s “soft” stance and said that hooligans, street drinkers and vandals needed to be tackled “with a big stick”.

Mrs Bourne said: “Asbos don’t work because they’re too complicated and often impossible to enforce. I am determined to address antisocial behaviour, which blights the lives of local people and communities.

“The Government has proposed a new system that gives PCCs a central role in ensuring that victims of low-level crime and antisocial behaviour can have a say in the punishment of the offender.”

Under the new Community Remedy approach PCCs would consult with victims and the public and agree with the Chief Constable a menu of sanctions for low level crime and antisocial behaviour. This would then be used when such crimes were dealt with out of court.

Magistrate and East Sussex county councillor Godfrey Daniel said Mrs Bourne had failed to understand the scale of the problem. He said: “Sometimes you need to wield a big stick.”

'Ignorance of practicalities'

He added: “Asbos have been very useful because offenders don’t get a criminal record unless they breach them.”

“Katy Bourne has demonstrated a total ignorance of the practicalities. She is just taking the Tory line of being soft on crime and soft on the causes of crime.”

The Government’s plans for community remedies would see people who admit low level offences ordered to make amends to their victims. However the system would only work if suspects admit their crimes.

Conditional cautions order people admitting summary only offences to comply with a range of rehabilitative or financially punitive conditions in exchange for being spared a criminal record.

Sussex’s yobs are more likely to breach their asbos than almost anywhere else in the country.

Breached asbos

Figures released by the Home Office last October showed that of the 510 asbos issued since their introduction, 256 had been breached at least once.

Barbara Denyer, of Black Dog Walk, Crawley, suffered more than 20 years of antisocial behaviour at the hands of her neighbour Gordon Clarke.

Clarke ignored warnings from police and the council and breached a restraining order before being given an asbo in 2001.

Mrs Denyer said yesterday (March 19): “I would want to see harsher, not softer penalties for people like that.”

Talking point: To what extent do you believe asbos work? Share your views by commenting below or write in to The Argus letters pages letters@theargus.co.uk

See the latest news headlines from The Argus:

More news from The Argus

Follow @brightonargus

Daily Echo on Facebook - facebook.com/southerndailyecho Like us on Facebook

Google+ Add us to your circles on Google+

Comments(10)

RottingdeanRant says...
3:03pm Wed 20 Mar 13

The vote here is pointless when it just asks if ASBOs are a waste of time when the issue is about what to do with so called softer punishments. I suggest that the commissioner considers asking us before she makes such statements.

StillHateBellotti says...
3:33pm Wed 20 Mar 13

ASBO's are not pointless, having worked on an ASBO unit without giving area away. They do work and they are easy to Police. They are relatively painless to obtain in court and the paperwork is not rocket science. They cost nothing to obtain if backed on to a relevant offence in the court apart from officer wages. It is not the ASBO that gives a person the criminal record but the offence for which the ASBO is attached. The ASBO is civil in nature. This is the type of people we have in charge of our Police, they have no idea of what they are talking about.

Crystal Ball says...
3:37pm Wed 20 Mar 13

Would Bourne be so casual about the subject if she was directly affected by the people in question?

mimseycal says...
6:02pm Wed 20 Mar 13

ASBOs are a waste of time if the community does not know the ASBO conditions imposed. I've seen far too many louts boasting quite openly about breaching their ASBOs.

The last temptation of crisps says...
6:12pm Wed 20 Mar 13

The Tories will 'cut' crime by magically calling it something else and not recording it.
The small resulting fall will be paraded before the election. Their supporters aren't very bright, so they'll be happy.

Next they'll be claiming anyone who uses the loo has a job and claim they've generated millions of jobs in the 'private' sector.

Geoffrey Madden says...
7:39pm Wed 20 Mar 13

Curious about PCC's having such "a central role", and why the Sussex commissioner felt free to voice her opinions before consulting victims, I discovered that on 15th February, when the draft Anti-social Behaviour Bill became publicly available, BBC online published a substantial article which said that the Home Affairs Committee "recommended a new national anti-social behaviour forum, headed by a chief constable, housing association chief executive and local council leader." PCCs were not mentioned. I also found a lawyer's opinion that the Bill "is not likely to become law until 2015".

mimseycal says...
7:44pm Wed 20 Mar 13

Victims are only secondary to the process. Their role is purely to act as witnesses and to pick up the tab for damages considered too hefty for the perpetrator to pay.

qm says...
10:25pm Wed 20 Mar 13

mimseycal wrote:
Victims are only secondary to the process. Their role is purely to act as witnesses and to pick up the tab for damages considered too hefty for the perpetrator to pay.
Too true . . . .

Maxwell's Ghost says...
11:02pm Wed 20 Mar 13

18 shoplifters at Sussex Uni and none prosecuted.
When is a crime not a crime? When Sussex Police are involved with managing it.

whereisthe...? says...
12:46pm Thu 21 Mar 13

Yet again, a BIASED question from rubbish ARGUS.

Question clearly should have been "Do you agree with this woman's views?"

The answer would then obviously have been an unequivocal 'NO'!

But spinning it this way means they can claim victory for her, make MORE cuts, and SCREW the public once again.


But again we find the Argus toadying to anyone with any power willing to give them an interview. Pathetic.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree