Consequences of Preventing Anti-Social Behaviour through Community Protection Notices in the UK

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 PhD student in Criminal Law and Criminology, Department of Criminal and Criminology Law, Faculty of Law, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran

2 Assistant Prof., Department of Law, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Shahrekord University, Shahrekord, Iran

10.22099/jls.2025.51333.5220

Abstract

Introduction: In criminal matters, driven by the ideal of creating a risk-free society, concepts such as risk management and security measures have led to the expansion of restrictive actions and certain punitive measures—at times applied before the formal establishment of criminal guilt. Among these preventive mechanisms are Community Protection Notices (CPNs). Community Protection Notices are civil preventive orders designed to prohibit specific behaviors by an individual or organization if the existing conduct is deemed to have a 'detrimental effect on the quality of life of individuals in the locality,' with non-compliance triggering specific enforcement mechanisms. The implementation of Community Protection Notices impacts several core principles of criminal law. This study aims to examine the consequences of adopting Community Protection Notices within the UK’s criminal justice system to evaluate the feasibility of integrating CPN-related policies into Iran’s criminal policy framework.
Methods: This study, aiming to examine the harms arising from the implementation of Community Protection Notice policies within Iran’s criminal policy framework, employs library-based sources and a descriptive-analytical methodology to address the following questions: What constitutes the concept of anti-social behavior within a nation’s criminal policy? What are the meanings of preventive justice, civil preventive orders, and Community Protection Notices? What are the advantages and disadvantages of adopting criminal policy frameworks based on Community Protection Notices in Iran? To this end, the study first establishes the theoretical framework by exploring concepts such as preventive justice, civil preventive orders, Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs), and Community Protection Notices. Library-based sources are utilized for data collection and analysis throughout this research
Results: This study argues that civil preventive orders, under the framework of preventive justice, constitute a form of personalized, two-tiered criminal law. In the first stage, an order is issued through a civil judicial process, and in the second stage—should the order be violated—a punitive and coercive response is imposed via criminal proceedings. The Community Protection Notice is one such type of civil preventive order, designed to expedite and streamline interventions by non-judicial authorities, including police and social enforcement officers, in response to anti-social behavior. During the initial stage, individuals deemed at risk of deviance or criminal conduct receive a formal warning from the competent authority. Failure to comply with the warning triggers the issuance of a Community Protection Notice, resulting in penalties for the offender. While such orders may enable rapid responses, they carry significant systemic risks. The CPN, by extending the application of repressive and reactive responses to the pre-proof-of-crime stage in a competent criminal court, leads to a violation of the presumption of innocence, with extreme consequentialism regarding antisocial behaviors and inattention to the elements of committed behavior, leading to a violation of the general theory of crime, and by applying punitive and coercive measures under a sham legal cover in line with extreme governmental control, leads to a violation of the rule of law. Rather than addressing root causes, Community Protection Notices prioritize suppression and control—effectively sweeping societal issues under the rug. Paradoxically, the frustration and resentment generated by such coercive tactics, grounded in social psychology theories, may fuel further aggression and anti-social behavior. Furthermore, as societal norms are fluid and subject to shifting governmental priorities, citizens remain perpetually vulnerable to warnings or Community Protection Notices. This constant surveillance destabilizes the principle of individual freedom, reducing liberty to a conditional privilege contingent on state-defined norms.
Conclusions: The Community Protection Notice has significantly influenced many fundamental principles of criminal law and introduced a novel form of excessive governmental control under the guise of legal frameworks. This phenomenon substantially contributes to the totalitarianization of states. Consequently, refraining from its implementation in Iran's criminal policy would be more advantageous than adopting it.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

Ashrafi, M. & Ashrafi, M. (2014). Aggression, lessons from the school of Islam, 644 (54), 64-71. [In Persian]
Ashworth, A. & Zedner, L. (2013). Prevention and The Limits of Criminal Law, London, Oxford University Press.
Ashworth, A., & Zedner, L. (2010). Preventive orders: A problem of under-criminalization. The boundaries of the criminal law, 59-87.
Ashworth, A., & Zedner, L. (2012). Prevention and criminalization: Justifications and limits. New Criminal Law Review: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal, 15(4), 542-571.
Ashworth, A. & Zedner, L. (2014). Preventive Justice, London, Oxford University Press.
Babaei, M. and Mahdavi, D. (2012). Criminal matters and their place in Iran's legal system. Criminal Law Doctrines, 9(3), 101-128. [In Persian]
Black, A., & Heap, V. (2022). Procedural justice, compliance and the ‘upstanding citizen’: a study of Community Protection Notices. The British Journal of Criminology, 62(6), 1414-1430.
Braithwaite, J. (2008). Regulatory capitalism: How it works, ideas for making it work better. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Brown, A. P. (2004). Anti‐social behaviour, crime control, and social control. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 43(2), 203-211. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2311.2004.00321.x
Burney, E. (2002). Talking tough, acting coy: what happened to the anti–social behaviour order?. The Howard journal of criminal justice, 41(5), 469-484.
Burney, E. (2013). Making people behave: Anti-social behaviour, politics and policy. Willan.
Cacault, M. P., Goette, L., Lalive, R., & Thoenig, M. (2015). Do we harm others even if we don't need to?. Frontiers in psychology, 6, 131747.
Calkins, S. D., & Keane, S. P. (2009). Developmental origins of early antisocial behavior. Development and psychopathology, 21(4), 1095-1109.
Chermack, S. T., Berman, M., & Taylor, S. P. (1997). Effects of provocation on emotions and aggression in males. Aggressive Behavior: Official Journal of the International Society for Research on Aggression, 23(1), 1-10. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2337(1997)23:1<1::AID-AB1>3.0.CO;2-S
Cole, D. (2015). The Difference Prevention Makes: Regulating Preventive Justice. Criminal Law and Philosophy, 3(9), 501-519. doi: 10.1007/s11572-013-9289-7
Collins, J. (2020). Securing Labour Standards Through Preventive Criminalisation: New Lessons from Civil Preventive Orders. King's Law Journal, 31(3), 373-401. doi: 10.1080/09615768.2020.1753349
Crawford, A. (2009). Governing through anti-social behaviour: Regulatory challenges to criminal justice. The British Journal of Criminology, 49(6), 810-831. doi: 10.1093/bjc/azp041
Dabirnia, A., Mashadi, A., & Shafiei Afrapoli, M. (2022). Analyzing the Ratio between the Rule of Law and Populism: Compatibility or Confrontation. The Journal of Modern Research on Administrative Law, 4(13), 87-111. [In Persian] doi: 10.22034/mral.2022.545919.1252
Dyzenhaus, D. (2013). Preventive justice and the rule-of-law project. Oxford University Press.
Ebrahimi, Sh. (2008). Crime prevention in challenge with human rights standards (Doctoral dissertation, University of Tehran, Tehran). [In Persian]
Ebrahimi, Sh. (2024). Preventive Criminology. Tehran: Mizan, 8th Edition. [In Persian]
Esmaeili, M. (2018). Preventive justice: controlling crime through the legal system. Criminal Law and Criminology Studies, 4(2), 297-326. doi: 10.22059/jqclcs.2018.239944.1232 [In Persian]
Fathi, M. J., & Hadi, D. (2013). The Position of Prosecutor in Modern Criminal Policy and Fair Trial Requirements. Jurisprudence and Islamic Law, 4(7), 123-148. [In Persian]
Ferzan, K. K. (2014). Preventive justice and the presumption of innocence. Criminal Law and Philosophy, 8(2), 505-525. doi: 10.1007/s11572-013-9275-0
Gholami, H. (2012). Criminal law as the last and the least resort. Journal of Criminal Law Research, 1(2), 41-65. [In Persian]
Gless, S. (2013). Transnational cooperation in criminal matters and the guarantee of a fair trial: approaches to a general principle. Utrecht Law Review, 90-108.
Heap, V., Black, A., & Rodgers, Z. (2022). Preventive justice: Exploring the coercive power of community protection notices to tackle anti-social behaviour. Punishment & Society, 24(3), 305-323. doi: 10.1177/1462474521989801
Heap, V., & Black, A. (2024). Net-widening, gap-filling, and shortcut justice: The practice of Community Protection Notices to regulate anti-social behaviour. Critical Social Policy, 02610183241281344. doi: 10.1177/02610183241281344
Hodgkinson, S., & Tilley, N. (2011). Tackling anti-social behaviour: Lessons from New Labour for the Coalition Government. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 11(4), 283-305. doi: 10.1177/1748895811414594
Holt, V. L., Kernic, M. A., Lumley, T., Wolf, M. E., & Rivara, F. P. (2002). Civil protection orders and risk of subsequent police-reported violence. JAMA, 288(5), 589-594. doi:10.1001/jama.288.5.589
Home Office. (2012). Putting victims first: More effective responses to anti-social behaviour. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/228863/8367.pdf
Home Office. (2021). Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014: Anti-social behaviour powers-Statutory guidance for frontline professionals. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/956143/ASB_Statutory_Guidance.pdf
Hosseini, S. H., Maleki, N., and Kazemi, M. M. (2025). Distancing from the General Principles of Criminal Law in Specific Laws: A Case Study of the Note on Article 7 of the Law on Protection of “Amr bil Ma’ruf wa Nahy anil Munkar”. Journal of Legal Studies, 17(2), 499-532. doi: 10.22099/jls.2024.50546.5179 [In Persian]
Jareborg, N. (2005). Criminalization as Last Resort (Ultima Ratio). Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 521-534.
Javadi, A. (2018). The Effect of the Rule of Law on Citizenship. Bioethics Journal, Special Issue on Citizenship Rights, 29-41. [In Persian]
Kemshall, H. (2003). Understanding risk in criminal justice. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
Lagoutte, S. (2005). Fair Trial and Defence Rights in Criminal Matters: An Introduction.
Levi-Faur, D. (2005). The global diffusion of regulatory capitalism. The annals of the American academy of political and social science, 598(1), 12-32. doi: 10.1177/0002716204272371
Levi-Faur, D. (2017). Regulatory capitalism. Regulatory theory: Foundations and applications, 289-302.
Matravers, M. (2013). On preventive justice. In Prevention and the Limits of the Criminal Law (pp. 235-251). Oxford University Press.
Millie, A. (2008) Anti-social behaviour. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
Miles, C. (2018). Provisional measures and the ‘new’plausibility in the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice. British Yearbook of International Law, bry011. Available online at www.bybil.oxfordjournals.org, doi:10.1093/bybil/bry011.
Minkkinen, P. (2006). ‘If Taken in Earnest’: Criminal law doctrine and the last resort. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 45(5), 521-536. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2311.2006.00441.x
Moss, D. A. (2004). When all else fails: Government as the ultimate risk manager. Harvard University Press.
Nadzir, M. S. M., Ooi, M. C. G., Alhasa, K. M., Bakar, M. A. A., Mohtar, A. A. A., Nor, M. F. F. M., ... & Nor, M. Z. M. (2020). The impact of movement control order (MCO) during pandemic COVID-19 on local air quality in an urban area of Klang valley, Malaysia. Aerosol and Air Quality Research, 20(6), 1237-1248. doi: 10.4209/aaqr.2020.04.0163 
Najibiyan, A. , sadeghi, M. H. , Forughi, F. and ebrahimi, S. (2020). The comparative study species of penal sanctions from hybridization viewpoint in Iran and French law. Journal of Legal Studies, 12(4), 303-337. doi: 10.22099/jls.2020.34501.3551 [In Persian]
O’Malley, P. (2006). Criminology and risk. Beyond the risk society, 43-59.
Ramsay, P. (2008). The theory of vulnerable autonomy and the legitimacy of the civil preventative order. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1091782
Rodgers, Z. (2023). Examining victims’ experiences of Community Protection Notices in managing anti-social behaviour. International Review of Victimology, 29(3), 487-506. doi: 10.1177/02697580221081860
Stacey, J. (2017). Preventive justice, the precautionary principle, and the rule of law. In Regulating preventive justice (pp. 23-39). Routledge.
Yavari, A. (2015). From criminal Law to criminal matters. Journal of Legal Studies, 7(2), 221-258. doi: 10.22099/jls.2015.3218 [In Persian]
Zedner, L., & Ashworth, A. (2019). The rise and restraint of the preventive state. Annual Review of Criminology, 2(1), 429-450. doi: 10.1146/annurev-criminol-011518-024526.
Journal of Legal Studies
Volume 17, Issue 3 - Serial Number 57
October 2025
Pages 259-290

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics