On the 1 September, sections 3(3) to 3(9) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 came into force.

These sections make it a criminal offence punishable with up to five years imprisonment for anyone to breach any Protection from Harassment Act injunction which is made after 1 September.

The fact that breach of this injunction will be a criminal offence will mean that courts will be able to make injunctions to cover juveniles between the ages of ten and 18.

At present, injunctions cannot be taken out against juveniles because juveniles cannot be published for contempt of court (Wookey v Wookey [1991] 3 Al ER 365) but a juvenile could be prosecuted in the youth court for breach of a protection from harassment injunction.That will provide both opportunities and difficulties for the police and could provide a pointer to future directions in policing.

The anti-social behaviour order and sex offender orders in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 are injunctions in all but name but breach of them will be a criminal offence not a contempt of court.

Protection from harassment injunctions have already been issued to cover long running demonstration in Thames Valley and Northumbria Police areas and if those injunctions are renewed the police in those areas could find themselves called upon to enforce injunctions against demonstrators who are committing a criminal offence simply by being at the scene.There is extreme complexity in the various ways in which injunctions are currently enforced in England and the police have an ambivalent role in their enforcement.

Breach of a common law injunction is merely a contempt of court and the police have no power to arrest or restrain a transgressor.

In family law and Housing Act injunctions a power of arrest can be attached allowing the police to arrest the transgressor and bring him before the civil court to be dealt with for contempt, while with Protection from Harassment Act injunctions the police have power to arrest and charge for the criminal offence contrary to 3(6) of the Act.

But they have no power to bring the offender before the civil court to be dealt with for contempt.It seems the entire subject of how civil court injunctions are enforced deserves to be looked at afresh by the profession and the police.

In many jurisdictions breach of any injunction is a criminal offence.

The justification for this being the view that a deliberate breaking of any court order is a breach of the law regardless of whether the order is made by a civil or criminal court.

While such a system certainly has the advantage of simplicity, making it the law in England would constitute a major change in the balance of civil and criminal law in this country and might well not be welcomed by the police themselves.

A simpler solution might be to give civil court judges the power to attach a power of arrest to any injunction whenever they consider it necessary whether for the protection of the plaintiff or to ensure that the injunction is obeyed.

Also youth courts could be given the power to enforce civil injunctions taken out against juveniles.It will probably be argued that such changes would damage civil liberties.

But in many ways the present confusion and weakness in the enforcement of injunctions is having a damaging effect on civil liberties by encouraging demands for the creation of more criminal offences.The weakness in the enforcement powers for civil court injunctions is a problem that has to be faced up to and solutions found.

Both from the pragmatic policing point of view and as a way of strengthening civil liberties, the civil law of injunctions may be the best way of reducing the seemingly never-ending political and media demand for newer and more draconian criminal legislation.