Case Study - Bolton  Firm and fair – fixed penalties target young litterersAs Bolton Council introduced fixed penalty notices for littering in 2004, their research showed that half the complaints were about young litterers. A tailor-made ‘Final Warning and Fixed Penalty’ system proved ideal to tackle juvenile enviro-offenders. Although fixed penalty notices were seen as a well-functioning method of tackling environmental crimes, the national guidelines on how appropriate they were for young people were a little more debatable, according to Cuthbert Jackson, an Education and Enforcement Officer from Bolton Council. His personal experience was that much of the existing juvenile justice structure wasn’t designed to accommodate minor environmental crimes, particularly juveniles or young persons who had been issued with, but failed to pay a fixed penalty notice. As with adult offenders, young defaulters should normally be prosecuted. However, in order for a case to be heard by a juvenile court, magistrates need to be satisfied that prosecution is a last resort, and that all reasonable alternative steps have been tried without success. Normally prosecution is reserved for serious offences. Paradoxically, it is quite acceptable to serve a fixed penalty notice on a juvenile aged 10 or over. However, political will in Bolton meant that was not an option and dictated that the council’s approach needed to be more educational.
Targeting 10–17-year-oldsBolton Council devised a strategy aimed at 10–17 year olds, which would use fixed penalty notices, but not require payment for a first ‘non-aggravated’ offence. The system is based on the ‘reprimand and final warning approach’ advised by the Home Office for the police. This was not intended to be a short-term campaign, but more a fair, firm and consistent system that could eventually cover offences such as graffiti, flyposting and dog fouling, as well as littering.
Involving the parentsThe final warning also places on file a record that the young person has been made fully aware of the law. It also involves the parent and gives the juvenile court an audit trail of actions taken before bringing a young person before them. The strategy enables enforcement officers on the street to deal with young people in exactly the same way they deal with adults, but provides an acceptable alternative to payment. It also means they can engage with the young people through both education and enforcement while giving them a chance to learn from the process. Two large-scale pilot projects raised awareness among 10,000 pupils and involved partner agencies including the police, youth offending team and anti-social behaviour unit. Piloting the schemeInitially, more than 60 fixed penalty notices were issued to young people at the pilot schools, and both schools joined in the discussion about alternative approaches that might provide a permanent solution. Encouraging students to stay on site during lunch was one of these examples, along with tighter criteria for monitoring anyone leaving the premises so they were less likely to visit local shops and drop litter. The pilots led to changes in the system. At the start, for example, the strategy applied only to 14–16 year olds. However, this would have meant differentiated advice in schools. Legal services also refused to deal with any cases of 17 year olds who failed to pay by prosecution. Defra guidanceThere was an issue with Defra guidance, which followed Home Office guidance to the police on the use of the penalty notices for disorder. This guidance recommended local authorities to serve notices on 16- and 17 year olds. The fixed penalty notice, unlike the Home Office ‘penalty notice for disorder’, is a non-transferable penalty and non-payment should always require prosecution of the original offence in court. Juvenile courts, however, are not expected to deal with first-time minor offences. Nor could the penalty ever be legally transferred to the young person’s parent as can the penalty notice for disorder. Therefore they felt that their strategy could be used consistently on all young people, whereas harder approaches could only be used on a few. These few might hit the headlines, but did not provide a sustainable system that consistently engages with young people in both education and enforcement. 500 people through the systemBetween June 2004 and December 2006, 500 young people went through the system and, in the cases which reached court, Bolton’s audit trail approach was applauded by the court itself. Two and a half years on and Bolton’s local environmental quality score has improved from 32 per cent to 21.5 per cent, and is likely to improve further to under 20 per cent in 2007. Case study: teenager in courtIn one case, reported in the Bolton Evening News, a teenager was fined for dropping an empty bottle on the town hall steps in Bolton. An environmental officer witnessed the incident and issued the youngster with a £50 fixed penalty fine for littering. It was later discovered to be the second time the teenager had been issued with a fixed penalty notice for dropping litter. The court heard how his mother, when contacted by the environmental officer, said her son would have to pay the fine, or he would never learn, but asked for the time allowed for payment to be extended until August. The fine had still not been paid by September. The teenager, who did not turn up in court, was fined £50 and ordered to pay £50 in court costs.
For more information, please contact Cuthbert Jackson at cuthbert.jackson@bolton.gov.uk |
