Government Strategies on graffiti
HOUSE OF COMMONS LIBRARY 8 October 1999 Dear Mr Davey Graffiti You asked whether there were any national proposals, ideas or pilot schemes aimed at tackling the problem of graffiti. You also wondered whether there were any new Government strategies or plans to introduce further legislation on the subject and in particular, whether there were any plans to restrict the age limit for the sale of spray paint. There do not appear to be any national strategies concerned with the particular problem of graffiti, as opposed to the issue of preventing crime and disorder in general, nor do there seem to be any national proposals for legislation concerning age limits for the sale of spray paint. Crime prevention is generally organised on a local rather than a national basis, thus enabling local initiatives to be developed in response to particular local concerns. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 emphasises this by requiring local authorities and the police to work together and co-operate with various other bodies in developing community safety strategies in response to concerns expressed by local people about crime and disorder in their area. At the national level the Home Office has made funding available for certain activities aimed at reducing crime, such as the series of competitions seeking bids from local authorities for funds to cover the installation of CCTV cameras in different parts of the country. The Home Office also carries out or commissions research on the effectiveness of different crime prevention or reduction measures and seeks to assist in the dissemination of good practice in the field of crime prevention. In 1994 the Police Research Group within the Home Office published a report entitled Preventing Vandalism: What Works? , the summary chapter of which I am enclosing this letter. A full copy of the report is available on the Home Office web-site . I also enclose the following material on initiatives aimed at dealing with the problem of graffiti: 1. "Aerosol graffiti vandal jailed for five years" - Times 13.3.1996; 2. "Harmony on the line as Metro tunes in to Delius to turn off vandals" - Guardian 30.1.1998; 3. Guidance on Statutory Crime and Disorder Partnerships Home Office (October 1998) Foreword, Introduction, Boxes 2.6, 2.7, 2.14, 2.16; 4. HC Deb Vol 331 c225-232, 11.5.1999; 5. HC Deb Vol 333 c15(O), 14.6.1999; 6. "The Big Clean-up: Fed up with graffiti blighting their streets and buildings, residents of Lewisham are tackling the problem by cleaning the mess up themselves" - Evening Standard 30.6.1999. I hope this will be helpful. Yours sincerely Home Affairs Section
HOUSE OF COMMONS LIBRARY 18 October 1999 Dear Mr Davey Reparation Orders/ Graffiti You asked for some information on the extent to which magistrates have been using their powers under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to impose reparation orders on vandals convicted of spraying graffiti. You also wondered whether it was true that there were health and safety issues concerning the toxicity of the cleaning fluids used to remove graffiti. Finally you also wanted to know who was responsible for supervising people on whom reparation orders had been imposed The provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 came into force on 30 September 1998 in those areas where they are being piloted. In a written answer to a question from Lord Cope of Berkeley on 15 July 1999 the Home Office minister Lord Williams of Mostyn said that 529 orders had been made so far . A Home Office report on News from the Youth Justice Pilots published in February 1999 stated that : - the two new community penalties (the reparation order and action plan order) are being well used in most areas piloting the orders, and broadly where the Government intends them to fit in the range of disposals available to the courts - with the reparation order displacing fines and discharges, and the action plan order displacing other community sentences (such as the supervision order and attendance centre order) especially in cases in which the young offender has first been convicted of an offence serious enough for such a sentence. There does not seem to be any more detailed information on the offences in respect of which orders have been imposed or the details of the orders that have been made . Material published by the Home Office on the subject of reparation orders certainly refers to their potential use in requiring offenders to clean up graffiti for which they have been found to be responsible. It makes no mention of health and safety issues or the possibility that the cleaning fluids used to remove graffiti may be toxic. The Home Office guidance on reparation orders made under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 states that : 6.12 The courts have a good deal of flexibility in deciding the nature of reparation which a particular offender should be required to carry out. It is important to note, however, that any reparation made under a reparation order should be reparation in kind, rather than financial; the compensation order already exists for cases where the court believes that financial recompense to the victim is appropriate. Reparation may vary from a simple letter of apology to a several hours per week of practical activity which benefits an individual victim or the community at large. Where possible, the nature of the reparation should be linked as closely as possible with the type of offence for which the reparation is to be made. It is for the court to decide what would be helpful and appropriate, and to ensure that any required reparation is commensurate with the seriousness of the offence for which the order is being given. Some examples of appropriate reparation are given below. · A 15 year old offender breaks into a newsagent's shop, vandalises the shop and daubs graffiti on the walls. Having been found guilty by the court of these offences he is sentenced to a reparation order which, with the agreement of the newsagent, requires the offender to clean the graffiti from the walls, and to spend one hour under supervision every Saturday morning for two months helping the newsagent to sort out his stock. · A 12 year old offender is terrorising an elderly lady by constantly vandalising her garden and shouting abusive language at her. He is sentenced to a reparation order which requires him, with the victim's agreement, to meet with the victim in order to hear her describe the effect that his behaviour has had on her, and to allow him to explain why he has behaved in this way, and to apologise. This meeting might be arranged and supervised by the local victim/offender mediation service, working in support of the area's youth offending team. · A 16 year old offender has caused minor damage to a local children's playground. The court sentences her to a reparation order. As there is no obvious, specific victim in this case, the reparation is designed to benefit the community at large, many of whom use the playground; the offender is required to spend one hour every weekend under supervision helping to repair the damage that she has caused. · A 14 year old offender is found guilty of damaging the greenhouse of an elderly man . The victim wants no further contact with the offender, but the court feels that some form of reparative activity would be appropriate. The offender is therefore required to spend 2 hours per week under supervision assisting the gardener at the local old people's home. It will be for the youth offending team to co-ordinate any reparative action and they may wish to set up local community based reparative schemes to deal with instances where reparation to the victim is not possible. Such local schemes might be run by voluntary organisations, and it will be for the youth offending team to decide how best such schemes might best be delivered. I am afraid that in the time available I have been unable to find any information about health and safety issues involving spray paint removers. As I have already mentioned, there is no reference to these issues in the context of reparation orders. Similarly, there is no comment on them in any of the material I have been able to find on general crime prevention programmes involving the removal of graffiti, such as those considered in the Home Office Police Research Group's report on Preventing Vandalism: What Works? . As far as your final question is concerned the Home Office guidance on reparation orders states that: 5.1 The responsible officer will be appointed by the court (sections 67(8)(a) and 67(10) of the 1998 Act), and may be a probation officer, a social worker of a local authority social services department or, more likely, a member of a youth offending team established by the local authority within whose area it appears to the court that the child or young person resides, or will reside. It will be the job of the responsible officer to supervise any requirements which the court decides to include in the reparation order. I hope this will be helpful. Yours sincerely Home Affairs Section
Home | How to contact me | Advice sessions | Parliament | Constituency | Liberal Democrats |