Civil protective orders and gangs

Civil protective orders are an important and under-utilised tool available to police forces to prevent criminal activity, disrupt organised networks, and provide early safeguarding interventions. While often perceived as reactive, these orders—particularly gang injunctions—can be used proactively to deter escalation, protect victims, and even safeguard vulnerable individuals drawn into criminality.

Weightmans has recently supported a police force in securing their first gang injunctions against young people whose behaviours escalated from anti-social behaviour (ASB) to public order and serious knife-related violence. These cases demonstrate the need for timely intervention before serious harm occurs

Gang injunctions – legal framework

Under the Policing and Crime Act 2009, police can apply for a gang injunction where they can show that the respondent:

Has engaged in, or has encouraged or assisted:

(a) Gang-related violence, or

(b) Gang-related drug dealing activity.

‘Gang-related violence’ is legally defined as violence, or a threat of violence, that is carried out in the course of or otherwise connected to the activities of a group that:

• Consists of at least three people, and
• Has identifying characteristics that enable others to recognise them as a group.

These are civil proceedings, typically brought before the Magistrates’ Court or Youth Court, with the civil standard of proof applying (balance of probabilities) as confirmed by the Supreme Court in Jones v Birmingham City Council (2024).

Challenges in modern context

The effectiveness of gang injunctions is, however, increasingly tested by the evolution of modern youth gang culture. Injunctions can be sought for youths aged between 14-17. Children involved in such groups are often acutely aware of police tactics and may deliberately avoid overt group identifiers. Frequently, the only shared link is their coercive debt bondage to organised crime groups (OCGs)—making it difficult to satisfy the evidential requirements even on a civil threshold.

Furthermore, these orders do not address the root causes of gang involvement—such as poverty, trauma, and social exclusion—and can risk being seen as punitive or even as a ‘badge of honour’ among youth networks.

Safeguarding and early intervention

Despite these challenges, gang injunctions should not be dismissed. Used appropriately, they can be an early intervention tool, drawing in Youth Justice Services (YJS) and other support agencies at a critical time.

Benefits include:

• Providing clear boundaries to young people (e.g., restrictions on association or area movement).
• Shifting decision-making responsibility away from children under coercive control.
• Opening up multi-agency safeguarding opportunities.

Even where a young person is referred to the National Referral Mechanism (NRM) for potential modern slavery or exploitation, this may reinforce - rather than weaken - the justification for a protective order.

Operational considerations for police

When recurring names appear in intelligence reports involving ASB and suspected drug activity, officers should consider whether the incidents themselves may be sufficient to support an application.

Key steps:

• Review the Gang Injunctions Practitioners’ Guidance for examples of what behaviours can be relied upon for an application.
• Consult Youth Justice Services early.
• Collaborate with partner agencies to formulate enforceable and meaningful conditions.

Conclusion

Whilst not without limitations, gang injunctions remain a valuable tool in the fight against youth exploitation and violent crime. They offer a means to disrupt dangerous behaviours early, protect communities, and support vulnerable individuals—many of whom are both victims and offenders.

Victoria James is an Associate at Weightmans.