Is Homelessness Criminalised in the UK?

Whilst, in Cambridge, we have consistent, supportive, compassionate policing and collaboration between services and police – the position across the country may be more confused and inconsistent. Please read the following to find out why. 

An article recently published in the International Journal of Housing Policy examines the issue of criminalising homelessness in the UK. Although laws criminalising anti-social behaviours are often justified on the grounds of public order and safety, this new piece of research contends that criminalising homelessness is an assault to human dignity, social inclusion, and the right to life, and calls for a balance between the conflicting interests of ‘public decency’ and the human right to housing.  

Research reveals that it is, in fact, more expensive to criminalise actions of homelessness rather than to provide shelter or deal with underlying causes of homelessness. This article will summarise the findings of Goodtime C. Okara (lecturer from the University of Plymouth), examine the complex and nuanced reasons which underpin homelessness and rough sleeping, and call for a compassionate and collaborative approach which lightens the load on the penal system, increases social housing provision, and connects rough sleepers with local support services. 

Causes of Rough Sleeping 

The causes of rough sleeping are complex and vary across nations and between demographic groups, but they can be loosely grouped around two main causes – individual and structural. 

• Individual – these can include a person’s individual vulnerabilities, personal habits and choices, mental illness or addictions which can leave them without social resources and drive them into homelessness. Some people end up sleeping rough due to high support needs (alcohol, substance abuse, and mental health issues). Other factors such as relationship breakdown, loss of job(s), the death of a friend/relative, or anti-social behaviour can also contribute to homelessness. 

• Structural – structural causes encompass housing market conditions, poverty, and unemployment. The risks of homelessness are often higher for those who live in the centres of economic activity but whose economic ability is on the margins of paying market rent for their housing.  

Criminalising Rough Sleeping: Past & Present 

The Vagrancy Act (1824) will recall the Dickensian era in which ‘idle and disorderly persons,’ ‘rouges,’ and ‘vagabonds’ were penalised for behaving anti-socially or prosecuted on the basis of begging and rough sleeping. People found rough sleeping in public spaces could be moved or fined up to £1,000 back in the 1800s. Incredibly, The Vagrancy Act took over 200 years to be repealed and has still not yet been fully implemented. Since the Vagrancy Act’s repeal in 2022, over 469 homeless people have been arrested. Although the act was repealed, it is about to be re-introduced as new legislation called the ‘nuisance rough sleeping’ bill – which looks to penalise ‘where a person/group is sleeping rough or intending to sleep rough in a place or does something that is a nuisance while in a place.’ The vague phrasing of this legislation is arguably no better than the terms of the Vagrancy Act, and allows people to be moved on by police, fined up to £2,500, or imprisoned for up to a month. The lack of an effective date for the Vagrancy Act and the introduction of a rough sleeping bill may threaten to overwhelm an already over-crowded prison system. 

The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime, and Policing Act (2014) is more current legislation which streamlines formal and informal measures which can be taken by police to combat anti-social behaviour. ‘Formal’ measures may include arrest, fines, orders, imprisonment for a period of 6 months or less, while ‘informal measures’ advise defensive architecture, move on, threat of arrest, designing out street homelessness, etc. But are these the only measures available for legal authorities to combat anti-social behaviour? What of the local network of support services which might be of support to the local authorities? Few of the enforcement mechanisms listed in the ASBCP Act meet the conditionality in a welfare system (a term meaning access to basic public welfare benefits and services). Furthermore, under the ASBCP Act, police contacting a local charity or support service for rough sleepers is not listed as an option under ‘informal measures’ of prevention. Support service referrals are not even mentioned for how the police might respond to cases of rough sleeping. Considering the tedious and ineffective nature of the informal measures proposed by the ASBCP Act, it will hardly come as a surprise that many local authorities and police often adopt formal enforcement measures rather than informal measures when dealing with rough sleepers.  

These types of gaps between the local enforcement and support services are precisely the spaces of homelessness prevention that the Cambridge Homelessness Charter seeks to address.  

Possible Solutions: Affordable Housing 

Okara’s research approaches rough sleeping as a human rights issue, considering that 9 out of 10 people who live without a roof over their heads are subject to violence, abuse, or theft. In view of this fact, Okara advocates for increased access to affordable housing through social homes, claiming that this is the best way to reduce homelessness before it occurs – with fewer emergency room visits, and reduced police-issued trespass violations.  

Possible solutions to the penalisation of homelessness compel reform makers and relevant stakeholders to: 

• Work on converting Long-term Empty Homes (LEH) into social housing 

• Reform Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) rules (which currently prevent the conversion of LEH’s) 

• Reform the Right to Buy scheme in England, providing access for council tenants to purchase homes at significant discounts 

• Call for the removal of Section 21 no-fault eviction notices  

• Manage rent increase control and the removal of discriminatory rental practices 

At the heart of these suggestions is an appeal to scale up the housing supply and streamline the planning approval process, actions which are, in fact, the most cost-effective solutions when compared with costs of homelessness and criminalisation. To read more about these suggestions in detail, click here. 

A Collaborative Approach  

Perhaps the most noteworthy insight from the Okara’s findings is the underexplored possibilities which collaboration between stakeholders (support services, legal authorities, policy makers, etc.) can offer those experiencing homelessness.  

This is precisely why we need the Cambridge Homelessness Charter to bring together diverse stakeholders – including the criminal justice system – together. Together we can design solutions that avoid criminalising rough sleeping, or other aspects of homelessness unnecessarily. 

What You Can Do 

• Write to your MP advocating for an effective date for the repeal of The Vagrancy Act 

• Join the Charter to a part of the city-wide movement to end rough sleeping in Cambridge