DOI: 10.1093/bjc/azr079

A problem-solving approach to anti-social behaviour (ASB) cases has recently been embedded into magistrates’ courts in England and Wales. This approach incorporates core components of the Anti-Social Behaviour Response Court (ASBRC) model and is underpinned by principles of community justice. This article summarizes some of the main findings of an 18-month ESRC-funded study that investigated how far the ASBRC model has been absorbed into mainstream courts in England and Wales. This research suggests that courts have not embedded community justice principles, nor have they altered their focus to incorporate a significant degree of liaison with the community. The article concludes with some observations on the implications of the findings for the development and enhancement of community engagement and community justice principles.

DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2230.2011.00844.x

This article considers the development and use of the law regulating the prosecution of parents under section 444 of the Education Act 1996, in the broader context of legislation and policy initiatives concerned with the governance of parental responsibility. It explores the ways in which the power to prosecute parents has been used by local educational authorities (LEAs) and interpreted by the courts. The article critically analyses the manner in which the powers emphasise punishment and retribution in the context of the social moralisation of flawed parents; pay insufficient regard to the effects of parental responsibility laws on low-income, single parent families; represent an attempt to impose a simple solution on to a complex socio-economic problem; and amplify the scope for mothers to be made the subject of criminal justice interventions. It is argued that the prosecution of parents imposes an unfair burden on mothers and, in particular, single parent mothers.

DOI: 10.1016/j.ijlcj.2009.03.001

Rejecting the concept of law as subservient to social pathology, the principle aim of this article is to locatc law as a critical matter of social structure - and power - which requires to be considered as a central element in the construction of society and social institutions. As such, this article contends that wider jurisprudential notions such as legal procedure and procedural justice, and juridical power and discretion are cogent, robust normative social concerns (as much as they are legal concerns) that positively require consideration and representation in the ernpifical study of sociological phenomena. Reflecting upon scholarship and research evidence on legal procedure and decision-making, the article attempts to elucidate the inter-relationship between power, 'the social', and the operation of law. It concludes that law is not 'socially marginal' but socially, totally central.

DOI: 10.1177/0038038507087357

This article proposes a (re)consideration of antisocial behaviour control informed by an analysis of the seminal work of sociologists of `reflexive modernity' (Beck, 1992, 1994; Giddens, 1990, 1991; Lash, 1994). It is hoped that the arguments advanced within this article will prompt further consideration of the following questions: What does the relative neglect of the reflexive modernity thesis tell us about the domain conjecture(s) of sociological theory on antisocial behaviour policy and the use of ASBOs? And can a focus upon reflexive modernity theory help to construct a more proportionate account of ASBOs as a form of social control? Hence, it is the purpose of this article to consider critically the implications of Beck's `risk society' to our understandings and explanations of antisocial behaviour, ASBOs and social control, by linking the late modern (re)formatting of antisocial behaviour(s) and the creation of ASBOs to the new parameters of the `risk society'.

DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2311.2007.00486.x

It has been argued that the introduction of anti-social behaviour orders (ASBOs) has created a `new domain of professional power and knowledge' ( Brown 2004, p.203). That is, local authorities have become `the main agency of [social] control' ( Brown 2004, p.205). Alternatively, this article considers the effects of subjective legislative terminology, pivotal jurisprudential decisions, the courts' protection of individual liberties versus the public interest, and the relevance of an overburdened summary criminal justice system, and attempts to locate the position of the judiciary within ASBO cases, not as a supportive or subordinate one, but in fact as a component of elementary importance.

Antisocial behaviour orders (ASBOs) are increasingly being used to proscribe non-illegal behaviour that is disapproved of, or which does not conform to accepted social norms. In some circumstances, the use of ASBOs appears to over-ride legal convention for reasons of political pragmatism. This article looks at the questions raised about the value and status of civil liberties and human rights within anti social behaviour legislation, and also within the wider 'tough on crime' agenda.

Anti-social behaviour is a serious and pernicious social problem in a significant number of areas and communities across Britain; its effects must not be understated or minimised. Consequently, efforts to enhance levels of engagement between affected communities and the courts should be welcomed. However, strategies to improve liaison between the judiciary and communities are certainly not unproblematic for a variety of reasons which I will discuss below. Drawing upon my own recent research (Donoghue 2010; also 2008 and 2007), I will identify the challenges and opportunities ahead for improved engagement between magistrates’ courts and our communities.