Anti-Social Behaviour Injunctions & Criminal Behaviour Orders Reporting

From the ASBO to two separate routes

Before March 2015, most anti-social behaviour orders were made under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (the ASBO). The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 replaced that single order with two separate mechanisms with different tests, courts, and consequences for breach: Part 1 civil injunctions, and Part 2 Criminal Behaviour Orders.

Getting the two routes right in your copy matters — describing a civil injunction breach as a “crime” or a CBO as merely an “injunction” misstates the legal position and can mislead readers about what actually happened in court.

Part 1: civil injunctions (s.1 orders)

A council, police force, housing provider, NHS trust, or other listed agency can apply for a s.1 injunction against anyone aged 10 or over. The court applies a two-limb test: the civil standard (balance of probabilities) that the respondent has engaged or threatens to engage in anti-social behaviour, and that granting the injunction is “just and convenient” to prevent further anti-social behaviour.

• Which court: Adults (18+): county court or High Court. Under-18s: youth court. Injunctions can prohibit specified conduct (exclusion zones, curfews) and, since 2014, impose positive requirements (attending a programme, for example) supervised by a named individual or organisation.
• Duration: An injunction against a respondent aged under 18 must specify a fixed period of no more than 12 months. There is no equivalent statutory maximum for an injunction against an adult.
• Breach: Breaching a Part 1 injunction is contempt of court, not a separate criminal offence. For an adult, the court can commit for up to 2 years' imprisonment under s.14 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, or impose an unlimited fine. For a young person, the court can make a supervision order or, in the most serious cases, a detention order.

Part 2: Criminal Behaviour Orders (CBOs)

A CBO can only be made by a criminal court, and only against someone who has just been convicted of an offence in that court — magistrates, youth, or Crown Court. The prosecution (or the court of its own motion) applies; there is no separate civil application.

Injunction vs CBO at a glance

Who can you name? The reporting rules

Open justice applies in full to both routes. Neither Part 1 injunctions nor Part 2 CBOs carry an automatic reporting restriction — for adults or for under-18s. Section 17 of the 2014 Act expressly disapplies the automatic youth-anonymity restriction in s.49 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 for s.1 injunction proceedings, continuing the “naming and publicising” approach Parliament took with the original ASBO.

For a CBO breach — which is prosecuted as an ordinary criminal offence — the court has a separate discretionary power to restrict identification of a defendant under 18 under s.45 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999. This is not automatic; it requires the court to weigh the young person's welfare against the public interest in open justice.

In practice: check whether you are covering the original injunction/CBO hearing (no automatic restriction either way) or a subsequent breach prosecution (where a s.45 application could, in principle, be made). If in doubt, ask the court legal adviser before publishing a young respondent's name.

The Community Trigger (ASB case review)

Section 104 of the 2014 Act gives victims of persistent anti-social behaviour a statutory right to demand a multi-agency case review once a local threshold is met — the threshold must be no higher than three qualifying complaints within a six-month period, though individual areas can set it lower. The relevant agencies (usually the council, police, and a housing provider) must publish their local threshold and review procedure.

For journalists, the Community Trigger is a genuine accountability tool. Councils publish anonymised case-review statistics and, in many areas, whether the review resulted in new action. A pattern of triggered reviews concentrated in one estate, or reviews that recommend action agencies then fail to take, is a legitimate local investigation — and the underlying data is usually available via a Freedom of Information request if not already published.

Pre-publication checklist

• I have identified which order is in play — a Part 1 civil injunction or a Part 2 Criminal Behaviour Order — and used the correct terminology throughout.
• Where the order was made against a person under 18, I have checked whether a discretionary reporting restriction has actually been made by the court, rather than assuming one applies automatically.
• I have accurately described the standard of proof applied (balance of probabilities for an injunction; beyond reasonable doubt for a CBO).
• Where I am reporting a breach, I have made clear whether it is contempt of court (injunction) or a fresh criminal offence (CBO).
• I have reported the specific prohibitions and any positive requirements accurately, including the duration of the order.
• Where the story concerns a Community Trigger review, I have contacted the relevant council or police force for their response before publication.

Common reporting errors to avoid

• ⚠Calling a Part 1 injunction a "conviction" — it is a civil order and carries no criminal record.
• ⚠Describing breach of an injunction as a new "crime" when it is contempt of court dealt with by committal, not a fresh charge.
• ⚠Assuming automatic anonymity for a young respondent — s.17 of the 2014 Act disapplies the usual CYPA 1933 s.49 restriction for injunction proceedings.
• ⚠Reporting the underlying allegations that led to a CBO as if they were separately proven facts, rather than matters the sentencing court found beyond reasonable doubt as part of conviction.
• ⚠Omitting the duration and specific terms of the order, which are often the most newsworthy and practically useful part of the story for local readers.

Related guides

Frequently asked questions