A prime example of this is the case of Mrs X who was served an ASBO purely on false allegations.
She wasn't made aware of the ASBO allegations until the papers were served to her for a hearing in December 2004.
This study explores: The Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 gives the police powers in designated areas to disperse groups of two or more where their presence or behaviour has resulted, or is likely to result, in a member of the public being harassed, intimidated, alarmed or distressed.
The powers are controversial due to the discretion they accord to police and the infringements of individual's rights they entail.
Explanatory Notes were introduced in 1999 and accompany all Acts of the Scottish Parliament except those which result from Budget Bills.
This timeline shows the different points in time where a change occurred.
Thankfully, the ASBO was overturned by the court and Mrs X was compensated but the council was criticised by the Local Government Ombudsman for "abuse of power of nightmarish proportions" (BBC News - 05/07/2007).
This report does little to alleviate the public's worries with regards to the ASBO - especially when the uses for ASBOs are now getting more and more obscure - with more and more government funding spent:•Running a business from home•Parking Illegally & abandoned vehicles•Overgrown, unkempt gardens•Nuisance Animals And then when you look at the more serious issues an ASBO can be issued for, then people can be forgiven for wondering what police work actually carries an official custodial sentence?
It can serve to: Many of the benefits that derive from dispersal orders stem from the process of authorisation and/or the associated activities that are triggered, rather than the powers per se.
This research uncovered examples where police data was insufficient to justify a dispersal order and alternative sources of data were used to strengthen the evidence-base.