ASBOs could be quite effective with adults — but dealing with difficult juveniles is not that simple
Most antisocial behaviour is made up of things like causing problems for neighbours or creating an ongoing nuisance around an estate
When antisocial behaviour orders were introduced almost 20 years ago, there was quite a bit of talk about them and what they might achieve. Looking back now, having actually worked with the legislation, I think there is an important distinction between what looked good on paper and what was practical on the ground.
From 2008 to 2017, I held the community policing sergeant portfolio. It was a relatively peaceful area, but like every town and community, it had its moments. We dealt with noisy parties, persistent nuisance in housing estates, disputes between neighbours and families, intimidation and, of course, young people getting involved in antisocial behaviour and sometimes progressing into more serious offending. Community policing was often about trying to stop those problems from getting worse.
This was also during the recession. Resources were cut, and everybody was trying to do more with less. We had incredibly good youth diversion projects which knew many of the young people we were dealing with and worked extremely hard with them and their families. Gardaí, youth workers, and community organisations generally worked together and tried to find solutions.
When you are actually doing that job, you are not particularly interested in the fanfare surrounding a new piece of legislation. You want to know one thing: Can I use it to solve a problem?
I did use the behaviour warnings introduced under the Criminal Justice Act 2006 and, particularly with adults, I found they could be quite effective.
They were not going to change the behaviour of a hardened criminal. If somebody was heavily involved in criminality, a behaviour warning was unlikely to suddenly make them rethink their life choices. There were other laws, and ultimately the courts, for that.
But most antisocial behaviour is not necessarily being committed by hardened criminals.
It could be somebody repeatedly having parties until all hours, causing problems for neighbours, creating ongoing nuisance around an estate, or becoming involved in relatively low-level intimidating behaviour.
In those circumstances, I found the warning useful. There was something quite simple about being able to sit somebody down, explain exactly what behaviour was causing the problem, and hand them a formal warning. It was a wake-up call.
Importantly, I also thought it was fair. You were not immediately criminalising somebody or bringing them before a court. You were effectively saying: "People are entitled to live peacefully in their homes, your behaviour is affecting them, it needs to stop and, if it does not, there is a further process available."
For the right person, that could be enough.
Read More
In fact, during my own time using adult behaviour warnings, I never had to take somebody through the entire process to obtain the eventual court order. The warning had generally achieved what I wanted it to achieve. That is why we need to be careful when looking at the statistics.
By November 2011, Gardaí had issued 3,033 adult behaviour warnings and 1,974 warnings to children. Fifteen good behaviour contracts had been entered into with children. Yet the courts had only issued four adult civil orders and three juvenile behaviour orders. Seven court orders from more than 5,000 warnings sounds like evidence of a system that did not work.
I am not convinced it is quite that simple. If the purpose of the warning is to make somebody stop the behaviour, and they stop, then there is absolutely no reason to take them to court. In that respect, my experience was probably closer to the Government's original argument that the actual ASBO should be a last resort.
Where I did have difficulty was with the juvenile process. I looked at using it in relation to a number of young people and, to be frank, I found the process far too cumbersome.
You identified the antisocial behaviour. A warning had to be issued, and the parent or guardian brought into the process. If the behaviour continued, there were reports, engagement with a Superintendent, meetings involving the young person and parents, the possibility of a good behaviour contract, and consideration of the Garda Diversion Programme. If those interventions failed or were inappropriate, you could eventually move towards an application to the Children's Court. I understand why those safeguards exist.
We should not be criminalising children unnecessarily. Parents should be involved. Diversion should be considered. Every effort should be made to prevent a young person from becoming more deeply involved in the criminal justice system. I strongly support that approach.
But there is another question that has to be asked much earlier in the process: Why is this young person behaving this way in the first place?
Antisocial behaviour is the behaviour we see. It is not necessarily the cause. Behind it there may be disengagement from school, peer pressure, substance misuse, instability at home, poverty, boredom, trauma, a lack of positive role models, or simply a young person testing boundaries and finding that nobody is setting any.
Sometimes there may be particularly good parents who are doing everything they can and are simply overwhelmed. And sometimes, if we are being realistic, there are parents who could not care less what their child is doing, who will not engage, or who have lost any meaningful ability to control their behaviour.
That matters, because much of the juvenile ASBO process assumes that bringing the parent into the room will itself help change what is happening. Sometimes it will. Sometimes it will not.
A good behaviour contract is only as good as the willingness and capacity of the people signing it to make it work. If the child does not care, the parent will not engage, or the family situation is already chaotic, another meeting and another document may achieve little.
That does not mean we give up on the child. Quite the opposite. It means we need to understand whether what is required is enforcement, family support, youth work, education, addiction services, mental-health support, diversion, or some combination of them.
The worst thing we can do is pretend that one legal mechanism is capable of solving all of those problems.
There is also the position of the community to consider. It is entirely right that we look at what is driving a young person's behaviour, but the people living beside that behaviour are entitled to be protected too. The person afraid to leave their house, the family whose sleep is repeatedly disturbed, or the shopkeeper dealing with intimidation should not have to wait indefinitely while agencies work out what intervention might eventually succeed.
That is where balance matters. Understand the cause. Support the young person. Engage the family where possible. Divert them from crime where we can. But protect the community as well. That is what an effective ASBO regime should be capable of doing. The problem is that if you design an intervention with so many stages that the people expected to use it find quicker and more practical ways of dealing with the problem, you must ask whether the legislation is achieving what was intended.
Antisocial behaviour also develops quickly. The response needs to have some connection in the mind of the young person between what they did and what happens next. A process involving repeated interventions, reports, meetings, senior Garda involvement, and eventually a court application can lose that immediacy.
Interestingly, concerns about the operation of ASBOs are nothing new. Their effectiveness was being reviewed by Government as far back as 2009.
More recently, the Government's Expert Forum on Antisocial Behaviour identified a number of issues with the system, including the Garda rank required for applications and the 30-day timeframe for issuing behaviour warnings.
Legislation enacted in 2026 provides for the minimum Garda rank required for adult and juvenile court applications to be reduced from Superintendent to Inspector, although those particular provisions require commencement before becoming operational.
That is a useful change, but I do not think changing a Garda rank on its own answers the bigger question. For me, the lesson from community policing was straightforward. The behaviour warning could be a useful tool. It was proportionate, it was clear and, for the right person, it could bring everybody back to their senses before matters escalated.
The juvenile route was different. The intention behind it was right, but the process was simply too cumbersome.
The answer now should not be to set targets for issuing more ASBOs. It should be to look again at what worked; what did not; and what Gardaí, young people, families, and communities need. Because antisocial behaviour may be described as “low-level”, but there is nothing low-level about it when you are the person living beside it every day.
CONNECT WITH US TODAY
Be the first to know the latest news and updates
