News

"You are not to dip one toe, not one finger, in a river or a canal." With these words, an antisocial behaviour order was slapped on 23-year-old Kim Sutton after several attempts to take her own life.

The Asbo banned her from places where she could commit suicide, including multi-storey car parks, railway lines, rivers, canals and bridges. She was warned that a breach could mean imprisonment.

Last month, solicitors fought to overturn the Asbo on the grounds that Sutton was suffering from a personality disorder.

Sutton's barrister asked the court: "Can it really be the intention of parliament that people with mental health problems are made the subject of Asbos?" He argued that it was more appropriate for Sutton to seek help.

The judge rejected the appeal, arguing that Sutton did not suffer from any mental illnesses defined in the Mental Health Act 1983 and that she had acted out of a desire for attention. But now, as Sutton's solicitors consider a second appeal, questions raised by her case remain burning issues.

Sutton's case is just one among a growing number where people with mental health problems or disabilities claim they are being unfairly criminalised by the government's flagship public order policy.

In an investigation by Community Care, three individuals spoke about their experiences, revealing how the needs of vulnerable people are being ignored amid a tabloid clamour for retribution.

None of the individuals wanted to be identified for fear of further stigma in their communities, and some details of their cases have been withheld at their request to protect their anonymity.

Elizabeth: Asperger's and Tourette's syndromes

Elizabeth's conditions prevent her understanding non-verbal communication. The Tourette's gives her tics and she swears and spits involuntarily.

She was threatened with an Asbo after an incident in a supermarket.

Elizabeth claims the staff "wound her up", but alleges she "couldn't help" her behaviour.

"Stress makes my Asperger's and Tourette's considerably worse," she says. "I was really angry."

Elizabeth claims that, when the police arrived at the supermarket after complaints about her behaviour, an officer said: "If you swear at me again I'll arrest you."

She says: "I told him I had Asperger's and Tourette's and said I couldn't help it, but he arrested me. I begged him not to put me in the police van. I couldn't handle it. I was terrified."

The police warned Elizabeth they would use an Asbo if her behaviour continued. They later dropped charges against her after verifying her disabilities with a doctor but stated the police officer who had dealt with her arrest had "acted in good faith".

Elizabeth has been traumatised by her experiences and is afraid she will have an Asbo placed on her if she is unable to control her behaviour. She adds: "Asbos are seen as an easy fix for dealing with people like me. I'm just about managing to keep my head above water, but social services are not prepared to help me until I sink to crisis point."

John: paranoid schizophrenic

John was issued with an Asbo after neighbours complained about his behaviour. He has been in prison for breaching the Asbo.

John claims his behaviour escalated because he did not receive the treatment and support he needed.

"Instead of treating my illness, the authorities have treated me like a criminal," he says. "It's not fair that I went to prison for breaching my Asbo. I did not intend to breach it. Prison aggravated my mental illness and I am still not getting the help I need. I'm in a no-win situation."

Pam: personality disorder

An Asbo was imposed on Pam last year, but she also claims she was unable to control her behaviour because she lacked support.

She says: "When I got my Asbo, I was going through a bad stage and didn't realise what I was doing. I couldn't cope.

"It's horrible when you get yourself into a situation that you can do nothing about."

While the voices of people like Elizabeth, John and Pam are rarely heard in the largely tabloid-led coverage of Asbos, their stories are just a few among a growing body of evidence coming to light.

Although the Home Office does not collect statistics on how many people with mental health problems or disabilities are receiving Asbos, the House of Commons home affairs select committee inquiry into antisocial behaviour earlier this year revealed rising concern.

Richard Garside, director of the Crime and Society Foundation think-tank, told the inquiry that Asbos were "not helpful" in cases where mentally-ill people had been "causing a nuisance to their neighbours". He said: "What is happening is that they are given an Asbo or subjected to other forms of often heavy-handed interventions, rather than having their mental health needs addressed."

Garside points to the lack of national information on the mental health needs of individuals subjected to Asbos, but highlights a study in Leeds that found about one-third of antisocial behaviour cases involved someone with a mental health problem.

Among the 30 cases of Asbos on vulnerable people submitted to the inquiry was one in which magistrates had imposed a curfew on a 20-year-old man with schizophrenia after some minor offences committed at the time when support and treatment were inadequate.

Because he breached the order, he was sent to prison for two weeks.

The British Institute for Brain Injured Children, which is leading a campaign against Asbos, has also independently identified 15 cases where children with special needs, including Asperger's and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, have received Asbos.


As the backlash against Asbos increases, more cases are being legally challenged.

Lisa Keen, from Bedfordshire, is to challenge her Asbo in court next month on the grounds of her mental health problems.

Her brother, Christopher Keen, launched the challenge after Lisa was "named and shamed" in a police leafleting campaign after being banned from her town centre.

Mental health charity Sane, which has backed Keen's and Sutton's cases, claims that mental health services are "passing the buck" of care into the criminal justice system.

Chief executive Marjorie Wallace says Asbos are seen as the "cheaper option" for local authorities. She also suggests that many individuals who fall foul of the antisocial behaviour laws are seen as "untreatable" or lack a clear diagnosis.

She says: "Mental health services may feel that treatments on offer are not obviously successful. There is a lack of therapy for people who don't have a defined diagnosed illness and who may not be treatable with medication."

Wallace highlights a need for better assessments and "intensive behaviour management" in the community, but says the question of cost and pressures on mental health teams makes this difficult.

The select committee also found that insufficient support for people with mental health problems was leading to breaches of Asbos.

In parliament last month, Home Office minister Hazel Blears laid the responsibility of making the right decisions on local agencies.

"If people with particular vulnerabilities or special needs are caught up in antisocial behaviour, all the partners should meet to discuss what action should be taken," she said.

Home Office guidance on vulnerable people who commit antisocial behaviour states that a practitioner with specialist knowledge should be involved in the assessment process where people are suffering from a disability, learning difficulty or mental health problem.

But in its report published in April, the select committee said it was "disappointed" that social services and mental health agencies were "not fully committed" to antisocial behaviour strategies as they viewed them as "too punitive". The government agreed.
Although the government is keen to place the responsibility for decision-making on local agencies, many professionals believe the system is flawed. One solicitor who recently challenged an Asbo on a person who had mental health problems blames the rising number of Asbos given to vulnerable people on "appalling" decisions by professionals.

Neil Pilkington, principal solicitor at Salford Council, says the decision-making behind Asbos is "a world full of tensions" between professionals' differing perspectives. Often, social workers, the police, housing associations, youth offending teams and other agencies are struggling to work to the same agenda.

Pilkington says: "When mental health professionals are invited to meetings on Asbo applications, they say they don't have consent to talk about individuals." He claims the lack of information sharing, caused in part by legal barriers on confidentiality, can lead to a "black hole" in the assessment of people's needs.

Wallace calls for mental health services or social services to take the lead in Asbo decisions concerning vulnerable people and argues they should be given the chance of treatment before "being judged for behaving badly".

But Jim Skelsey, a solicitor in Camden, the borough that issues the highest number of Asbos in the capital, says support agencies helping individuals can be "bypassed" in the decision-making process.

He says: "I have seen cases where agencies have made excellent representations on behalf of their clients and have argued that Asbo applications are premature, but the council has been inflexible and determined to impose an Asbo, come what may."

Other professionals say vulnerable people are being unfairly targeted because the legal definition of antisocial behaviour - "acting in a manner that caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress" - is too broad.

The National Autistic Society, which has backed Elizabeth's case, has called for the definition of antisocial behaviour to be based on "intent" rather than on the "likelihood" of causing alarm or distress.

Amanda Batten, NAS policy officer, says: "It is unfair to expect people with mental health or other conditions such as autism to behave in a socially appropriate way. They won't know what is appropriate."

One solicitor representing a mentally ill individual in a legal challenge against an Asbo is calling for greater awareness. He says: "These cases are more complex than the courts are willing to admit."

He warns that, as the government places the onus on councils to drive up the number of Asbos, more vulnerable people will be at risk of breaching them and be unfairly criminalised.

The home affairs select committee report on antisocial behaviour and the government's response can be read at www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/home_affairs_committee.cfm