Introduction

Back in February, we saw the introduction of the Crime and Policing Bill into the House of Commons. This bill includes the introduction of the highly anticipated respect orders. Since the announcement of the bill, it has passed through multiple stages in its journey to being implemented into law. Currently the bill is in its second reading in the House of Lords.

As part of this process, relevant agencies were asked for their thoughts and feedback on the proposed bill. So, we wanted to share our response to this call for evidence with our readers.

Table of contents

Respect Orders

The new respect orders being proposed in the Crime and Policing Bill are very similar to the current anti-social behaviour injunctions (ASBIs) that police and councils can already apply for. The main difference is in how they are enforced. Instead of the County Court handling both the granting and enforcement of the order, the Magistrates’ Court will now deal with breaches of the order, even though the county court still grants it.

Here are our main points in response:

There’s no clear explanation of when it would be appropriate to apply for a respect order without giving notice to the other person involved. We assume the usual legal rules will apply but this should be made clearer.

We believe official guidance should explain when and how it’s appropriate to make a without notice application, especially for frontline professionals who don’t have legal training.

Respect orders introduce a new criminal offence if someone breaks the order. But this splits the process in two: one court issues the order (County Court), and another court enforces it (Magistrates’ Court).

This raises several concerns:

    • Delay in enforcement: If someone breaches an order, the case will now go to the Magistrates’ Court, where backlogs could mean long waits. This could leave victims exposed and unprotected.
    • No power to vary or extend: The Magistrates’ Court cannot change or extend the respect order – only the County Court can do this after a conviction. That means a second set of court proceedings will be needed, which could add cost, time and more distress for victims.
    • Loss of local authority powers: Currently, local authorities can enforce ASBIs, PSPOs, and CPNs themselves. Under the new system, only the police and Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) will be able to enforce respect orders. This could slow down enforcement, add extra costs, and reduce local oversight. We question why councils, who already play a key role in tackling ASB, are being removed from the process.
    • Sentencing clarity needed: It’s unclear whether there will be specific sentencing guidelines for breaches of respect orders. Consistency and fairness will depend on this.
    • Civil vs criminal penalties: Housing injunctions will still be enforced as a civil matter, with the usual contempt of court penalties. We think it would be better if County Courts and High Courts could issue community-based sentences, and if clear sentencing guidelines were introduced for breaches of housing injunctions too.

We welcome the proposal that a risk assessment must be completed before applying for a respect order.

However, we think further clarification is needed:

    • Will the risk assessment help professionals comply with other important laws, like the Equality Act or Human Rights Act? Will the guidance confirm that completing the risk assessment is enough to meet those obligations?
    • A standard national risk assessment process should be created. This would ensure that all professionals are assessing risk consistently, for both victims and alleged perpetrators, right from the start of a case.

Youth and housing injunctions

Schedule 1 makes a small but important change: it renames existing injunctions under Section 1 as either “youth injunctions” or “housing injunctions”, depending on who they apply to.

A new Section 13A also introduces a requirement for a risk assessment before applying for these injunctions. We hope this process will also help ensure that agencies are thinking about their responsibilities under the Equality Act and Human Rights Act when they apply for an order.

Closure of premises

There are two key changes we support:

    • More time before court: The time between issuing a closure notice and the first court hearing is being extended from 48 hours to 72 hours. This gives people living in the property a bit more time to prepare a defence if needed, which is a positive step.
    • More powers for housing providers: Registered Social Landlords (RSLs) will now be able to apply to close a property they own. We welcome this change, as it gives housing providers more tools to tackle serious anti-social behaviour.

Suggested improvements not yet in the bill

While we support many of the proposals in the bill, there are some additional changes that could strengthen how injunctions and closure orders are used. These aren’t currently included, but we believe they would make a real difference:

Allowing closure orders to be applied for without needing to serve a closure notice first, in cases where there’s no particular urgency to list cases in court, for example, in cuckooing situations. This would let agencies go straight to court without the added step of issuing a notice when it’s not necessary.

When a closure order is made, magistrates should also be able to:

    • Ban certain individuals from the area around the property, and
    • Put protections in place for witnesses – currently, this requires a separate court case, but it would be more efficient and protective if the Magistrates’ Court could handle everything at once.

We’d like to see guidance on how magistrates’ courts manage closure order cases, including:

    • Deadlines for sharing evidence
    • Clear rules on what happens if deadlines aren’t met. This would help speed up cases and make the process fairer for everyone involved.

We think respect orders would benefit from more specific guidance, especially for situations involving:

    • Street drinking or drug use
    • Shop theft, sex work, or begging
    • Rough sleeping or street preaching

Guidance would help the courts understand how these behaviours can meet the legal test for anti-social behaviour (i.e. causing alarm, harassment, or distress).

There are currently no official forms for respect orders, youth injunctions, or closure orders in the Magistrates’ Court. Practitioners often have to create their own, which leads to inconsistency. Having clear, standardised forms would save time and reduce errors.

ASB Case Review

We support the idea of giving Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) a clear duty to promote awareness of the ASB Case Review in their area and to provide a way for victims to challenge decisions through their office.

This change would help make sure the ASB Case Review works more fairly and consistently across the country, so victims receive the same standard of support no matter where they live. We welcome this step – national consistency is essential.

New ASB data

The bill would give the Home Secretary new powers to require local organisations, like councils and housing providers, to report specific anti-social behaviour data to the Home Office.

This will help build a clearer national picture of how ASB powers are being used, improve monitoring of what works, and guide future government action.

We welcome this move toward better data and transparency.

Current proposed amendments as of June 2025

Since our response to the government’s call for evidence, the following amendments have been proposed for the anti-social behaviour section of the Crime and Policing Bill:

    • The minimum age an individual can be served a respect order has been lowered from 18 to 16.
    • If a person is more than one respect order, they can be liable for a fine.
    • If a person has a respect order, they can be moved to the bottom of the social housing list, if applicable.
    • Repeated breaches of a respect order can result in up to 5 years in prison.
    • The Home Office will be required to publish quarterly data on the issuing of ASB orders.
    • The definition of ASB has been updated to reflect that rough sleeping or passive begging, on its own, does not constitute as anti-social behaviour. It would place a legal duty on authorities to consider context, vulnerability, and proportionality when assessing whether behaviour constitutes anti-social behaviour.

However, these are only proposed amendments and may not make it into the bill.