PSPOs are intended to prevent specific acts which would not otherwise becriminal offences. They have been criticised as restricting freedoms and having a disproportionately severe effect on people below the poverty line.[2]
PSPOs can be challenged within six weeks of the order being issued on the grounds that the local authority does not have the power to issue the order, or that the legislation related to PSPOs has not been followed.[5] The challenge must be made by a person who lives in the area or regularly visits it or, alternatively, a challenge can be made by any person charged with this offence.[5]: 5,7b PSPOs must be renewed every three years.[6] PSPOs have also been challenged throughjudicial review.[7]
A PSPO placing restrictions on dog-walking was challenged viajudicial review issued inRichmond upon Thames resulting in orders related to causing annoyance and damage to council property being removed. This affirmed the principle that PSPOs are intended to target antisocial rather than annoying behaviours.[7]
The issue of PSPOs is covered by theAnti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.[5] TheHome Office issues guidance for their use.[8] In the case of limiting the walking of dogs councils are encouraged to publish lists of alternative dog walking locations and should consider whether such alternatives exist.[8]: 69 Councils are advised that it is important to not restrict sociability in public places, and that a broad range of the public should be free to gather, talk and play games.[8]: 71
PSPOs have been introduced to apply to a wide variety of issues.
Examples include:
Salford City Council introduced a PSPO coveringSalford Quays, which bans acts including using foul and abusive language.[9][10] This has been interpreted as a response to football fans.[11]
Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea introduced a PSPO "to address the excessive level of noise nuisance, annoyance, danger or risk or harm or injury caused by motor vehicles to members of the public" inKnightsbridge.[12]
In 2022,Redbridge Council used a PSPO to fine a man for sexual harassment, in the first example of such a use of the PSPO powers.[17]
In December 2022, a PSPO was used to arrest aWolverhampton priest, Isabel Vaughan-Spruce, for praying on the street outside an abortion clinic. When approached by police, Vaughan-Spruce claimed she was praying "in her head" and she was charged with "protesting and engaging in an act that is intimidating to service users".[18] Charges against Vaughan-Spruce were dropped in February 2023[19] and she received a payout of £13,000 from West Midlands Police in August 2024,[20] however in October 2024 a new addition to thePublic Order Act 2023 was made, creating "buffer zones" outside abortion clinics across England and Wales.[21]
In 2015,Hackney Council attempted to introduce a PSPO which would have bannedrough sleeping.[22] A similar ban was proposed inNewport.[23] The Home Office guidance for PSPOs states that PSPOs should not be used to prevent homelessness and rough sleeping.[8]: 69
