Drunken crimes

The Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 received Royal Assent on 8 November 2006. As its title suggests, this legislation is primarily concerned with reducing violent crime, both causally, by controlling drinking, and prohibitively, by amending existing offences and creating new ones relating to firearms, knives and other weapons. In line with recent trends, the Act also contains provisions relating to a plethora of other matters entirely unrelated to violent crime, such as mobile phone reprogramming and sexual offences.

When it first emerged, the Licensing Act 2003 hailed a new era of liberalisation in licensing law. However, this liberalisation came at a time when binge drinking was both on the rise and, more importantly, on the front pages of newspapers. While the Licensing Act 2003 cannot be said to have caused the rise in alcohol-related disorder, it is unlikely to have reduced it. Most importantly, alcohol-related disorder costs, both socially and financially, in terms of police time.

But, as per usual, this government giveth with one hand and taketh away with the other. In January 2005, the Home Office issued the consultation paper 'Drinking responsibly'. This assessed the period 2002/2003 (prior to the Licensing Act 2003 coming into effect) and drew the following conclusions: 20 per cent of violent offences take place around pubs and clubs; 44 per cent of all violent crime is fuelled by alcohol; and 70 per cent of accident and emergency admissions between midnight and 5am are alcohol-related. The costs of dealing with the above are estimated at £7.3bn a year. So someone must pay. The breweries and pubs, as profitable businesses, benefiting from extended opening hours, became the unsurprising target.

In many ways, the perceived need for the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 emphasises how the Licensing Act 2003 has failed to achieve some of its objectives. It was hoped that longer licensing hours would result in the staggered closing of pubs and clubs and thereby reduce the level of violence at 'chucking out time'. The need for alcohol disorder zones (ADZ) indicates that the Licensing Act 2003 has yet to achieve some of its aims.

Longer hours and more responsibilities

The two main creations of the Act are ADZs and drinking banning orders (DBO): the former aimed at retailers, the latter at consumers. Once an area experiences a rise in alcohol-related crime, the local authority can create an ADZ: this affects all licensed premises within the designated zone. Once an ADZ has been created, the local police authority, in association with affected publicans, has two months during which to develop and implement a plan to reduce disorder. This could include the provision of improved transport at night or the early closing of beer gardens. If such measures do not succeed, financial penalties are incurred by the premises within the ADZ.

While the breach of a DBO carries only a level four fine, the introduction of DBOs brings to an end to centuries of tradition: by preventing magistrates from sentencing the drunk and disorderly to a fine or time served. Now, it will be necessary to consider whether a DBO is appropriate, identify the relevant pubs and clubs and check the availability of the reduction scheme (which, on completion of a prescribed course, would appear to operate similarly to the drink-drive reduction scheme).There is even an issue as to whether the possible imposition of a DBO could lead to legal representation being granted.

If someone was a persistent offender, it would seem that an anti-social behavioural order (ASBO) would be available. Therefore, the creation of this mini-ASBO type order would seem to add little to the catalogue of orders already available to the courts.