vagrancy case study uk

• Search Menu
• Advance articles
• Featured Content
• Author Guidelines
• Open Access
• About The British Journal of Criminology
• About the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Dispatch Dates
• Terms and Conditions
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Introduction, the early origins of powers of pre-emptive arrest, the vagrancy act and associated legislation, 1824–1914, pre-emptive policing in the 1920s and 1930s, pre-emptive policing after the second world war, r eferences, the vagrancy act (1824) and the persistence of pre-emptive policing in england since 1750.

*Paul Lawrence, Department of History, Arts Faculty, The Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes MK7 6AA, UK; [email protected]

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Paul Lawrence, The Vagrancy Act (1824) and the Persistence of Pre-emptive Policing in England since 1750, The British Journal of Criminology , Volume 57, Issue 3, 1 May 2017, Pages 513–531, https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azw008

• Permissions Icon Permissions

This article argues that research into preventive and pre-emptive crime control in the United Kingdom has marginalized the historical persistence of the power to arrest and convict on justified suspicion of intent. It traces the genesis of this power in statute law (particularly the Vagrancy Act of 1824) and demonstrates its consistent use in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. It shows how this pre-emptive power was fiercely defended by police authorities, particularly during the rise of the ‘civil liberties’ agenda during the 1930s, only losing ground when use of these powers became entangled with debates about race relations in the 1970s. Overall, the article argues that ‘pre-emptive’ arrest and conviction on suspicion of intent have been a significant component of UK police powers since the later eighteenth century, and seeks to demonstrate the value of historical criminology in problematizing contemporary debates.

It has been argued recently that, since the late twentieth century, the United Kingdom has witnessed a fundamental shift in the temporal focus of the institutions of criminal justice, away from investigating crimes and punishing criminals and towards preventing and pre-empting criminal acts. Following ground-breaking early work ( Steiker 1998 ), researchers have sought to trace a growing state emphasis on the prevention of crime, as opposed to simply its detection and punishment after the fact. This ‘preventive turn’ ( Edwards and Hughes 2009 ) has been traced across ‘a wide range of legal doctrines and penal measures, substantive and procedural, legislative and executive’ ( Dubber 2013 : 47), leading to the claim that we witnessing the ‘rise of the preventive state’ ( Ashworth and Zedner 2014 : 10).

Recent additions to this literature have focussed specifically on the notion of ‘pre-crime’ ( Zedner 2007 ). A pre-crime approach to criminal justice seeks ‘to punish, disrupt, incapacitate or restrict those deemed to embody future crime threats’ ( McCulloch and Wilson 2015 : 1). In this, it has been seen as distinct from a risk-oriented, preventative approach both because it typically anticipates crimes and then proceeds as if they had already happened and because ‘suspicious identity and outlawed associations’ are the basis for state intervention rather than specific criminal acts ( McCulloch and Wilson 2015 : 9). The rise of pre-emptive, ‘pre-crime’ strategies of crime control is rarely seen as a positive development and thus can be read as a contributor to what Waddington (2005 : 353) has called ‘civil libertarian pessimism’—the belief that ‘the inevitable future for civil liberties can only be erosion’.

Although a growing interest in the advantages of historical criminology has been in evidence during same the period as these debates about prevention and pre-emption (see, for example, Bosworth 2001 ; Knepper and Scicluna 2010 ; Lawrence 2012 ), debates about preventive policing and a pre-crime approach have been almost completely focussed on the contemporary period. There is little sense in the literature that, with respect of policing at least, a ‘pre-emptive’ approach or mind-set may not be as novel as has been assumed. Although Zedner (2007 : 264) has argued that it is important not to overstate the ‘epochal nature’ of current trends, much of the criminological literature addressing the rise of the preventive state and the growth of pre-crime approaches has a tendency to view these changes as indicative of a fundamental shift in the practise of criminal justice.

Partly this is because, even among historians concerned with the police, prevention (and certainly pre-emption) has not been seen as integral to the historical practice of policing. A considerable body work on the ‘idea’ of Police in the later eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries and researchers has indicated that a broad conception of the term ‘police’ existed at that point, encompassing a wide range of proposed regulatory activities intended to ensure the healthy functioning of the body politic and prevent crime and other social ills ( Neocleous 2000 ; Dodsworth 2007 ). However, this broad conception is seen to have narrowed as the ‘New Police’ of the nineteenth century developed. The Metropolitan Police of 1829 (and other forces introduced later) certainly had the prevention of crime as a primary duty but this preventive function has customarily been seen as expressed via a narrow focus on deterrence rather than other forms of prophylactic or pre-emptive action ( Emsley 1996 : 25; Lawrence 2011 : xv).

The introduction of uniformed officers patrolling regular beats certainly marked a shift in practice away from the entrepreneurial, reactive policing of the later eighteenth century, as typified by the Bow Street Runners ( Beattie 2012 ). Although this new approach was also often coupled with exhortations from constables to home owners and the business community to secure their goods and property more effectively, overall there has been a tendency to see the enthusiasm for broad powers of preventive policing evident at the start of the nineteenth century as dissipating over time. Even researchers attuned to a historical perspective have focussed on the preventive powers held by the police in supervising known, ‘habitual’ criminals ( Godfrey et al. 2010 ) or concluded that ‘by the mid-nineteenth century, the very idea of ‘preventive policing’ had largely passed out of favour’ ( Ashworth and Zedner 2014 : 41). Preventive policing in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries has thus generally been seen as the ‘path not taken’ ( Garland 2001 , 31–2).

This article, which can serve also as a worked example of the potential advantages of historical criminology, seeks to rebalance current criminological debates about a preventive or pre-emptive turn by showing that, in fact, a demonstrably ‘pre-emptive’ approach has been part of British police practice since the early nineteenth century. Part I will analyse the deep historical roots of legislation which allowed the police to arrest a citizen and obtain a summary conviction on suspicion alone , powers eventually enshrined in Section 4 of the Vagrancy Act (1824). Part II will show how this power of pre-emptive arrest and conviction was extensively used and developed between 1824 and the First World War. Part III will consider the interwar period in detail, analysing how the police lobbied effectively to retain their powers of pre-emptive arrest despite growing pressure from civil liberties organizations and the press. Part IV will consider the continued attempts on the part of the police to hold on to these powers after the Second World War, until eventually the pressure of public opinion grew too great in the late 1970s. In conclusion and throughout, it will be argued that the persistent use of the power to convict on the suspicion of intent to commit a felony requires a reconsideration of the development of pre-emptive policing in the United Kingdom. The efforts made by the police to hold onto this power, and its imaginative deployment in a wide range of contexts, show that this component of the ‘preventive state’ is neither a novel nor an inconsequential development.

There is some evidence that a desire on the part of the state to arrest and detain ‘suspicious’ persons significantly pre-dates the modern period ( Stewart-Brown 1936 ; Duggan 2015 ). However, crime control was ‘not a focus for very much innovative effort on the part of central authorities’ prior to the eighteenth century ( Innes 2009 : 67) and it is primarily from c.1750 onwards that powers of pre-emptive arrest and (more importantly) conviction became codified in law. The crime wave of 1749–53 was crucial to this process, as key reformers such as the London magistrate Henry Fielding became concerned at how ‘audacious, insolent and ungovernable’ the ‘common people’ had become ( Whitehall Evening Post , cited in Rogers 1991 : 87). In his widely read Enquiry ( Fielding 1751 ), Fielding represented the crime wave as a structural crisis of order and argued that measures to increase both popular respect for law and order and to enhance executive authority were required.

Thus, from the 1750s, it is possible to trace a succession of legislation which increased the powers of both magistrates and constables to arrest and convict with a minimum of due process. The Disorderly Houses Act (1751/2 ), for example, gave magistrates the power to detain and question (for six days) anyone ‘suspicious’ apprehended during a general privy search (an annual or biannual routine search of common lodging houses and other premises). The London Streets Act (1771) empowered watchmen to apprehend ‘disorderly persons loitering, wandering or misbehaving themselves’, as well as any ‘whom the said Watchmen shall have reason to suspect of any evil designs’. These were primarily powers of detention rather than arrest, but reflected the growing sense that magistrates needed greater powers to regulate ‘suspicious’ persons.

It was in 1792, however, with the passing of the Middlesex Justices Act (1792) , that the case for extensive preventive powers was more fully elucidated. The main aim of the Act was the creation of seven police officers in London, each staffed by three stipendiary magistrates and six constables ( Beattie 2012 ). However, it also specified broad powers for these magistrates and this concerned many. Charles Fox (and others) argued that Clause D of the Act, which allowed the new magistrates ‘to bring persons before them to inquire into their characters and intentions, and to commit them to prison on such an inquiry’ introduced ‘a power pregnant with abuse’ ( Cobbett 1817 : 1464–5). The clause further specified that ‘ill-disposed and suspected Persons, and reputed Thieves, frequenting the Avenues to places of Publick resort […] with intent to commit felony’ could be convicted on the oath of ‘one credible witness’. Several MPs argued that the clause introduced a new principle into law, by creating a new category of person (the ill-defined ‘reputed thief’). William Windham argued that this appeared to reverse ‘the usual order of things’, by proposing ‘to punish men, not for acts that they committed, but for those which they intended to commit’. He further argued that such a clause was ‘calculated to protect the rich’ and that ‘the poor alone were to suffer by it’ ( Cobbett 1817 : 1466).

The Bill’s introducer (Mr Burton) clarified that ‘the clause ought to be considered a preventative against the commission of crimes, rather than a punishment for criminals’ ( Cobbett 1817 : 1469) and, in the end, the House of Commons took the view that the clause would form part of a temporary, experimental Act, and the Bill was passed. Although the House of Lords also expressed concerns over the clause, most Lords in the end agreed with the sentiment expressed by the Lord Chancellor that it was right that ‘those who inspire in peaceable folk a reasonable suspicion of danger should be called upon to explain their character and remove the grounds for suspicion’ ( Debrett 1792 : 535–6). The 1792 Act thus set a clear precedent around preventive arrest and conviction, and similar clauses were included in subsequent renewals of the Act, as well as in other pieces of policing-related legislation.

The Depredations on the Thames Act (1800) , for example, specified that, ‘suspected persons frequenting the river, or quays, and warehouses, or streets or avenues leading to them, with intent to commit Felony’ could be conveyed by any police constable before a single magistrate and, on the oath of a single witness (usually the police constable) that they were there ‘with such Intent as aforesaid’, could be deemed a rogue and vagabond and subjected to punishment under the 1744 Vagrancy Act. Other legislation, too, such as the Night Poaching Act (1800) and the Preservation of the Peace Act (1812) incorporated similar phraseology, allowing the conviction of ‘divers ill-disposed and suspected persons’ on the grounds of justified suspicion of intent.

It has become common now to see the period 1780–1820 as a ‘tipping point’ in the development of criminal justice in London. The period has been seen by some to be one in which a recognizably ‘modern’ system of justice began to develop (including a salaried magistracy, publicly-accessible police officers and career police officers) but it can also be painted as one in which ‘the law’ moved from being a shared expression of rights and responsibilities to a system for the maintenance of order in a manner reassuring to particular propertied groups within society ( Beattie 2012 ; Hitchcock 2012 ). Certainly, by the early nineteenth century, the power to arrest on suspicion was firmly embedded within both the discourse and practice of policing in London. The stage was thus set for the migration of these pre-emptive powers to national legislation during the 1820s via the transference of key clauses into the Vagrancy Act of 1824.

The early 1820s were a period of particular concern over vagrancy ( Roberts 1991 ; Rogers 1991 ), with Vagrancy Acts passed in 1821, 1822 and 1824. The 1821 Act was primarily concerned with regulating the costs of vagrancy, but the 1822 Act sought a more wholesale reconsideration of all legislation, introducing temporary provisions that were made permanent (and in some instances extended) by the 1824 Act. Obviously, one primary concern of the 1824 Act was with the regulation of begging and rough sleeping. Sections 3 and 4 (still in force) specified that anyone begging or sleeping rough without visible means of subsistence and ‘not giving a good account of himself or herself’ could be arrested and charged. The provisions of the Act also extended punishments to individuals implicated in a broad range of socially ill-favoured behaviours including selling goods without a license, telling fortunes, leaving one’s family chargeable to the parish, street betting, escaping from custody, soliciting by prostitutes and indecent exposure. 1 It is Section 4 of the Act, however, that is the most germane to the issue of pre-emptive policing as it developed the power to arrest and to secure a conviction on the basis of suspected intent (to commit any felonious act, not just one related to vagrancy), using the testimony of just one witness—usually the arresting officer.

Drawing on the prior, metropolitan legislation discussed above, Section 4 of the Act specified that anyone found with housebreaking tools ‘with intent feloniously to break into any Dwelling house, Warehouse etc’, or anyone armed ‘with Intent to commit any felonious Act’ could be charged under the Act. The same clause also specified that every ‘suspected Person or reputed Thief’ found near docks, quays or warehouses, or in any ‘Place of public Resort’ with ‘Intent to commit Felony’ could be deemed a rogue and vagabond. This ‘intent to commit’ clause thus rendered offenders liable to up to 3 months hard labour on first summary conviction by a magistrate. To be abroad in a public place, acting suspiciously and unable to give a good account of oneself was henceforth reason enough for arrest and conviction.

There was surprisingly little debate in 1824 about the provisions of Section 4 of the Act. Some complained, after the act had been passed, that ‘whereas, heretofor, no man could be apprehended but for the commission of an offence’, now ‘being suspected by a magistrate […] draws down all the penalties of a substantive offence absolutely committed’ ( Adolphus 1824 : 33). Parliament, however, did not discuss Section 4 at length during the passing of the Act, and coverage in the press was limited. The reason for this seems clear. Pre-emptive police powers were not a novel or noteworthy development by this point. Rather than part of an effort to control vagrancy per se , the ‘arrest on suspicion of intent’ clauses of the Vagrancy Act should instead be seen as part of an ongoing debate on the notion of ‘police’, both in an expansive sense (how to regulate social behaviour) and in our more modern usage (how, practically, to enforce the law). What is particularly significant about the 1824 Act, however, is the way in which it came to underpin the massive expansion of policing, which began with the founding of the Metropolitan Police in 1829.

The new legislation quickly made its way into handbooks used by Justices of the Peace ( Nolan 1825 ; Robinson 1825 ), and magistrates lost no time in putting the law into effect. On 24 August 1824, for example, there were 10 committals under this legislation during a single session at Bow Street magistrates’ court. Two ‘lads’ charged with ‘lurking about the avenues of the English Opera-House, with intent to commit felony’ were sentenced to two months’ hard labour, two other young men (whom the arresting officers ‘swore they knew to be reputed thieves’) were sent to the treadmill for three weeks, and a further six lads ‘all of them very young’ were committed for various periods on the same charge. In all of these cases, no criminal act had been committed other than that of giving rise to suspicion of intent ( Times 1824 : 3).

Outside London, too, the Act was soon put to use. In Exeter, for example, a youth found in the grounds of a foundry was apprehended as he attempted to run away. The presiding magistrate observed that he had been ‘lurking suspiciously about’ and that although ‘nothing was found on him, nor was anything that night missing from the foundry […] of his bad intentions there could be no doubt’. As the Vagrant Act gave him the power to punish ‘wickedly inclined and disorderly persons’, the magistrate sentenced him to hard labour at the treadmill for two months ( Trewman’s Exeter Flying Post 1825 ).

No official statistics were kept of the work of the summary courts at this point, but such broad powers over ‘suspicious persons’ proved useful enough during the 1820s to make their way in modified form into the Metropolitan Police Acts (1829 and 1839 ) and other local police acts (such as the Cheshire Constables Act 1829 ). These police acts, which underpinned the expansion of new forms of policing during the early part of the century, all drew directly on the same legislative concepts (and indeed prose) as the prior laws already discussed. Clause B of the Metropolitan Police Act (for example) specified that a constable could apprehend ‘all loose idle and disorderly persons […] whom he shall have just cause to suspect of any evil designs, and all persons whom he shall find between sunset and the hour of eight in the forenoon, lying in any highway, yard or other place, or loitering therein, and not giving a satisfactory account of themselves’.

Such police acts primarily conveyed powers of arrest . Suspects still needed then to be examined and charged with an appropriate offence. As such, they established a different form of police power to the Vagrancy Act 1824, which allowed actual conviction on the basis of suspicion of intent alone. Nonetheless, they do indicate a desire to equip the New Police with broad powers of arrest, detention and conviction over a range of individuals felt to be ‘suspicious’. Taken together, the Vagrancy and Police Acts can thus be seen as indicative of the development of pro-active, preventive policing, backed up by swift summary justice. While London led the way, as the boroughs and counties developed their own police forces in the middle decades of the nineteenth century, there were frequent memoranda from regional magistrates and Chief Constables requesting that the powers of arrest and detention contained within the Metropolitan Police Act be extended across the country ( Browne 1862 ).

Returning to the powers conveyed by the Vagrant Act 1824, however, when the recording of judicial statistics for the summary courts began in 1857, it is clear that this act was being well used by the police and the courts. Figure 1 shows the combined total for the two offences covered within Section 4 of the act—‘going equipped’ and ‘frequenting with intent to commit a felony’. Between 1857 and 1911, the combined figure was rarely below 4,000 cases.

Section 4 Vagrancy Act (1824) cases proceeded against, 1857–1911. Source: Compiled from annual judicial criminal statistics, published within British Parliamentary Papers. Total represents combined figures for the offences of ‘found on inclosed [sic] premises possessing lockpicks etc]’ and ‘frequenting’.

Although fluctuating considerably, the clause was in constant use until the First World War (around an average of 4715 per annum for the period). As might be expected given its population at the time, London accounted for the largest single set of proceedings. In 1870, for example, the peak year for convictions under Section 4 of the Vagrancy Act, London accounted for 40% of all cases. Moreover, looking more widely, the offence was largely an urban one, with the new industrial boroughs of the north of England accounting for a further 24% of all proceedings. 2 Obviously, while these figures do not necessarily reflect actual levels of offending, they do nonetheless indicate that the use of the pre-emptive powers granted by the Vagrancy Act had become an established tool in the police arsenal.

Looking at the fluctuations in proceedings, the considerable drop in usage post 1871 does not imply a diminution in the use of such powers by the police but rather reflects the impact of the Habitual Criminals Act (1869) and the Prevention of Crimes Act (1871) . Both acts contributed significantly to the power of the state in regard to surveillance and preventive policing in relation to known criminals. The Habitual Criminals Act (1869) pertained primarily to convicts released on license (so-called ‘ticket of leave men’) and Section 8 specified that they could be arrested and subjected to imprisonment for up to a year (with or without hard labour) if they were ‘found by any police officer, in any place, whether public or private, under such circumstances as to satisfy the magistrate […] that he was about to commit […] any crime […] or was waiting for an opportunity to commit […] any crime’.

Importantly, section 9 of the Act also clarified the usage of the Vagrancy Act (1824) by applying the same standards of proof to that act. Driving home the message that the legislation was intended to apply to a class of person rather than a type of act, the wording specified that ‘in proving […] intent it shall not be necessary to show that the person suspected was guilty of any particular act or acts tending to show his purpose or intent, and he may be convicted if from the circumstances of the case, and from his known character […] it appears […] that his intent was to commit a felony’. The Prevention of Crimes Act reaffirmed these key provisions, as well as tightening the reporting restrictions for convicts on license ( Godfrey et al. 2010 ).

Later in the century, the implications of police use of the Vagrancy Act began to be worked through in case law. In 1884, for example, Thomas Wale (26) was charged with ‘frequenting Buckingham Palace Road with intent a felony’, having been observed hanging around and making ‘three distinct attempts to pick pockets’ ( Times 1884 ). However, the presiding magistrate interpreted the legislative term ‘frequenting’ to mean ‘attending a given place repeatedly’ and, as the arresting officer admitted that he had not seen the prisoner in Buckingham Palace Road before the day of his arrest, the prisoner was (‘to his utter surprise’) discharged.

This precedent was obviously something of an inconvenience for the Metropolitan Police and so, at their request, Bow Street Magistrates raised the issue with Godfrey Lushington (Permanent Under-Secretary at the Home Office). He took legal advice within the government and was assured that ‘the word ‘frequenting’ used in the Section 4 of the Vagrant Act could be construed as ‘loitering’ when several suspicious acts are done by the loiterer in the same street on the same day’ ( Ingram 1885 ). Given this advice, and following an article in the Justice of the Peace favourable to this position, the police concluded ‘it would be well to try whether juries will convict on counts framed in accordance with the suggestion of the Justice of the Peace ’ ( Ingram 1885 ). So it proved, and a pattern was set of magistrates resisting some police interpretations of Section 4 of the Vagrancy Act, and the police taking legal advice and then looking for a suitable case to take to appeal to reset the precedent. This pattern of use, challenge and counter-challenge became highly-charged politically after the First World War.

The interwar period was one of broad concern over police powers. Debate was often focussed primarily on corruption ( Emsley 2007 ; Wood 2013 ) but the Royal Commission on Police Powers (1929) did comment on Section 4 of the Vagrancy Act, noting that the police had a tendency ‘to strain the evidence’ when they genuinely believed a prisoner to be guilty. In relation to this tendency, the Commission asserted that it was most apparent in relation to ‘charges of a vague character, such as loitering with intent to commit a felony’, where the ‘corroboration of one constable by another’ tended to ‘increase the chance of a miscarriage of justice’ ( Royal Commission on Police Powers 1929 : 103).

Partly as a reaction to such concerns over police powers, the interwar period also witnessed the inception of civil liberties organizations such as the National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL). While primarily focussed on monitoring the policing of fascist and anti-fascist demonstrations ( Clark 2012 ), the NCCL also expressed concern about the increasing use of Section 4 of the Vagrancy Act. It noted in 1936, for example, ‘a disquieting increase in charges for frequenting or loitering in a public place with intent to commit a felony’ and quoted a Marylebone magistrate who had found against the police and had commented that they had shown ‘a tendency to bolster up their case on lines that “now we have got them, we must do something about it”’ ( National Council of Civil Liberties 1936 : 16).

As Figure 2 demonstrates, such concerns were not unjustified. The interwar period did indeed witness a significant rise in the number of cases bought under Section 4 of the Vagrancy Act, with the totals for the mid-1930s on a par with those of the 1860s. Arrests in London now accounted for the majority, totalling over 75% of all cases proceeded against ( Home Office 1936 : 106–7). The fall from 1935 onwards was again partly accounted for by the passing of legislation. The Public Order Act (1936) gave the police powers broad powers to arrest without warrant when they suspected an individual was either carrying a weapon in public or planning to engineer a breach of the peace. But it is likely that the drop in the use of Section 4 of the Vagrancy Act in the later 1930s was also the result of increasing scrutiny by the media, growing public concern and a series of important court cases. In the face of these pressures, the police (and the Metropolitan Police in particular) had to lobby energetically in order to retain their Section 4 powers throughout the interwar period.

Section 4 Vagrancy Act (1824) cases proceeded against, 1922–1938. Source: Compiled from annual judicial criminal statistics, published within British Parliamentary Papers. Total represents combined figures for the offences of ‘found on inclosed [sic] premises possessing lockpicks etc]’ and ‘frequenting’.

During the First World War, the case of Hartley v. Ellnor (1917) had established the precedent that Section 4 of the Vagrancy Act could be used to arrest individuals as ‘suspected persons’ on the basis of acts committed on the same day as their arrest . Robert Ellnor had been observed by P. C. Hartley repeatedly jostling passengers at the Birmingham tram terminus. Suspecting him of pickpocketing, he arrested Ellnor and the case hinged on whether the jostling observed earlier in the day could have served to make him a ‘suspected person’ under the Vagrancy Act (and thus justifying the final arrest later in the afternoon), or whether prior evidence of bad character was required. The magistrate concluded that it was not and, henceforth, there was no need for the arresting officer to have any foreknowledge of the individual concerned—the observation of a series of suspicious acts on the same day in the same area was enough to justify arrest and conviction.

During the 1920s and early 1930s, Section 4 cases had generally followed this precedent. In the mid-1930s, however, coincident with the rise of both unemployment and fascist/anti-fascist political violence, preventive policing and pre-emptive arrest came under particular scrutiny. There was periodic press interest in unusual cases of arrest on suspicion of intent (such as that of Flying Officer Fitzpatrick, arrested in 1933 for refusing to identify himself to plain clothes officers who he believed were confidence tricksters, or Ronald Roberts, arrested in 1934 while posting a letter late at night). This media coverage often led to calls for the Home Secretary to provide statistics for arrests under Section 4 (HC Deb 2 March 1933, c542; HC Deb 31 May 1934 c337; HC Deb 2 April 1935, c193; HC Debate 5 March 1936, c.1595). The Home Secretary in turn often corresponded with the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, and hence by the mid-1930s, there was a growing awareness on the part of the police of the sensitivity of this issue

In 1936, in response to another request by the Home Secretary for arrest statistics, the Deputy Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police drew up a ‘Secret Memorandum’ circulated within government and to other high-ranking police officials ( Drummond 1936 ). He noted that ‘the energetic deployment of the power of arrest conferred on police by […] the Vagrancy Act 1824 […] [was] a most valuable means of checking crime’. Drummond conceded, however, that while ‘constables must be encouraged to use these powers fearlessly’, there was ‘always the danger that if by mismanagement or ill-luck two or three bad cases were to occur at the same time, a strong demand might develop for the withdrawal or curtailment of the existing powers—which would be little less than disastrous’. The final response drafted by the Commissioner (Philip Game) for the Home Secretary to deliver in the House of Commons was a strong endorsement of the powers, noting that they were ‘of the greatest value’ in preventing crime and that ‘without this statutory power the police would frequently not be in a position to take any effective action’ ( Game 1936 ). Game did conclude privately to the Home Secretary, however, that ‘in view of the recent press agitation’ and given ‘how the House can work itself into a frenzy about an isolated case’ it might be wise to tighten arrest guidelines.

Although directives were issued to clarify procedures, this modest initiative was overtaken by a further court case— Ledwith v. Roberts (1936) . In this case, the defendant had been observed by constables in Liverpool spending 25 minutes in a telephone kiosk, apparently preparing to break it open and steal the coins within. The judge held that this was not sufficient grounds for considering the defendant a ‘suspected person’ and found against the police. The Liverpool police, somewhat aggrieved by this, appealed but this was also rejected on the same grounds, with costs awarded against the police. The presiding judge concluded that ‘it appears […] difficult to think that the legislature intended to leave it to a constable to arrest without a warrant any citizen […] if he suspected that he was loitering for the purpose of committing a crime’ ( Ledwith v. Roberts 1936 ).

The Police Review (1936) outlined the ramifications of this in blunt terms, exclaiming ‘once more the Olympians have dropped a crowbar into the machinery of Police Law […] the total result, in one sentence, is that it has become exceedingly dangerous for a Constable to arrest any person whom he suspects is intending to commit a felony’. The issue remained live throughout 1936. The Chief Constable of Birmingham wrote to the Home Office in November noting that ‘the police throughout the country are rather at sea on the matter and some direction from the Home Office would be most useful’ ( Moriarty 1936 ). A Detective Officers’ Conference, which took place in Bristol in December, discussed the matter and concluded that the upshot of Ledwith v. Roberts was that ‘police powers would in future be severely restricted with regard to suspected persons’ ( Carter 1937 ).

In response to such concerns, the matter was discussed in January 1937 by the ‘Committee on Detective Work, Sub-Committee E’. The meeting was attended by four Home Office Officials, two Inspectors of Constabulary, the Deputy Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police and five Chief Constables. The group noted that although ‘the provisions of Section 4 of the Vagrancy Act were habitually used by the police when they had no other remedy open to them’, they had ‘admittedly been in the habit of occasionally taking a risk’ and would have to ‘act with more caution’ for the time being ( Dowson 1937 ). A plan was then agreed, however, to try and reverse the precedent created by Ledwith v. Roberts by bringing a case similar to Hartley v. Ellnor before a higher court, so as to ‘give a clear decision on the question whether this case was still good law’. Clearly, the desirability pre-emptive policing was such that government officials and the police were prepared to invest time and money in remedying an adverse judicial decision. A suitable case was not long in the finding.

In February 1937, John Smith was seen by two police officers loitering and trying the handles of parked cars in various London streets ( Rawlings v. Smith 1938 ). Smith had initially been spotted by a member of the public, who reported the matter to a uniformed patrol, who in turn took advice from a plain clothes officer in a patrol car. The two officers followed Smith for 90 minutes before arresting him for loitering with intent to steal. Smith initially refused to be fingerprinted or give his name but, on appearing at Bow Street Magistrates’ Court, he was subsequently identified as John Thomas Smith, with a string of aliases and no less than 45 previous convictions, mainly for petty theft. Smith denied the charge and was not previously known to either of the arresting officers.

Considering the case, Sir Rollo Graham Campbell, Chief Magistrate at Bow Street Police Court, held that while the accused was indeed loitering in a public place with intent to commit a felony, the charge of being a suspected person was dubious. He decided that Smith’s previous convictions were too far in the past (he had not been convicted for 4 years) to make him a suspected person. Although he had been arrested for repeatedly trying car door handles, Graham Campbell followed Ledwith v. Roberts in concluding that the act which aroused suspicion and the act which prompted arrest could not be one and the same, and subsequently acquitted Smith.

As per the decision of the Committee on Detective Work, the Metropolitan Police decided to appeal the case. The Commissioner felt that because the decision would be ‘one of very considerable importance to Police administration’ and because ‘the liberty of the subject is involved and […] an unrepresented Respondent might cause adverse comment from the Bench’, it was necessary to arrange appropriate legal representation ( Kendall 1937b ). The Home Office concurred, noting that the case seemed to be ‘as good a one as we are likely to get for an application to the High Court on one of the points which was left uncertain in Ledwith’s case’ ( Robinson 1937 ). In the end, no expense was spared, with the Metropolitan Police arguing ‘it is vital that we should have first class Counsel to argue the point […] we must get Home Office authority to employ a silk’ ( Kendall 1937a ).

The appeal was heard in the High Court in December 1937 before the Lord Chief Justice, who found that Graham Campbell had misinterpreted precedent. As Smith had tried a number of car door handles, these antecedent acts were quite enough to classify him as a suspected person and, as such, he could be arrested under the Vagrancy Act the final time he touched a handle. In other words, Hartley v. Ellnor was reinstated—if a police officer observed an individual behaving suspiciously and believed he was about to commit a crime, this was again sufficient grounds for both arrest and prosecution.

Thus, the police were very keen during the interwar period to preserve the power to arrest and convict simply on suspicion—without any actual crime having taken place. These powers were useful to them and they were prepared to go to considerable trouble to keep them. Although the Metropolitan Police may have been somewhat more restrained in their use of Section 4 in the final few years before the Second World War, the issue of heavy-handed use of powers of arrest on suspicion still often featured in the press and in House of Commons debates. Section 4 continued to be used widely and not always appropriately, a pattern that was to continue in the period following the Second World War.

After 1945, and in the face of cyclical press scrutiny as in the interwar period, the Metropolitan Police continued strongly to defend their use of the power to arrest on suspicion, and this position was generally supported by the Home Office. It was only when the issue became intertwined with race relations in the 1970s that the police position became increasingly untenable. As Figure 3 shows, following a dip in prosecutions attendant to the mass mobilization and disruption of the Second World War, cases remained relatively low until the mid-1950s when they began to rise again. They reached a post-war peak in 1963, with levels again approaching those of 1935 and the 1860s. Significantly, by this point age figures were being recorded and it is noteworthy that although in 1963 the vast majority of proceedings were against adults over 21 years of age, by 1973 this had changed significantly with c.50 per cent of all proceedings against youths under 21 years of age. As in the interwar period, London arrests accounted for the vast majority of all cases.

Section 4 Vagrancy Act (1824) cases proceeded against, 1947–1979. Source: Compiled from annual judicial criminal statistics, published within British Parliamentary Papers. Total represents combined figures for the offences of ‘found on inclosed [sic] premises possessing lockpicks etc]’ and ‘frequenting’.

During the 1940s and 1950s, a range of cases established further precedent favourable to the police use of Section 4. Cohen v. Black (1942) , for example, proved that the joint observations of several police officers could be pooled to establish ‘antecedent facts giving rise to suspicion so as to bring the person into the category of a suspected person’. R. v. Clarke (1950) established that evidence of previous convictions were admissible in court to show that the person charged was a ‘suspected person’, even if these previous convictions were unknown to the arresting officer at the time of the arrest . The police themselves also evinced continued zeal in attempting to stretch the terms of the legislation for their own purposes. In 1945, for example, a 15-year-old youth (Alan Robinson) was arrested and charged under Section 4 when found on the roof of a cinema, the contention being that he was about to break in and commit a burglary. Because of the antiquated wording of Section 4 of the Vagrancy Act, the police were forced to admit that they had had to ‘stretch our imagination and the Act a bit’ by describing the cinema as a ‘warehouse’, on the flimsy pretext that ‘films, chocolates, cigarettes and ices’ were stored there overnight ( Rundle 1945 ). Similar cases had occurred before, one of which had resulted in the London School of Economics being described as a warehouse, as books were stored there overnight.

After the Robinson case, the Deputy Assistant Commissioner CID wrote to the Home Office noting that the Vagrancy Act was ‘invaluable’ because it was ‘much used in the prevention of crime by apprehending the offender before he has had time or opportunity to commit an offence’. Concluding that without its continued use, ‘crime figures would be much higher than they are at present’, Howe pressed for a change in the wording of Section 4 so as to make police prosecutions easier ( Howe 1945 ). In reviewing the case, the Director of Public Prosecutions (Theobald Mathews) rejected the request on the grounds that it would ‘open the door to agitation for the repeal of other useful but unpopular parts of this Section by spiritualists and others’ ( Mathews 1945 ). He concluded, however, by restating what had become the standard Home Office position—‘one cannot tinker with the Vagrancy Acts. Their vocabulary and some of their penalties are obsolete, but on the other hand they are useful for dealing with common offences not covered elsewhere’.

Section 4 was in constant use during the 1950s and 1960s, with a Law Society report compiled in 1968 noting that it remained ‘the most statistically significant of all the 1824 Act offences’ and that its practical use was ‘important in combating […] potential motor car thieves […] and pickpockets in places of public resort’ ( Law Society 1968 ). The same report described Section 4 offences as ‘exceptional’ because ‘the previous convictions and bad character of the accused person frequently form part of the prosecution’s case’. Although ‘not unnaturally’, this did ‘provoke resentment and from time to time noises of disapproval from sections of liberal opinion’, the report nonetheless still recommended the retention of the clause.

In 1971, the Home Office set up a Working Party (consisting of representatives of the Home Office, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Department of Health and Social Security, and the police) to review the vagrancy laws once again. During the course of this review, the Home Office acknowledged that the Vagrancy Act was an unusual piece of legislation in a twentieth-century context, deeming it ‘peculiar insofar as it attempts to control behaviour which is in itself neither a substantive offence nor an attempted offence’ ( Working Party on Street Offences 1973 : 2). That said, it concluded that it was useful to be able to obtain convictions in cases where ‘the conduct of the accused, while going beyond anything likely to be susceptible of an innocent explanation [did] not amount to a substantial step towards the commission of an offence’. As such, the Working Party once again recommended the retention of Section 4 in any proposed legislative redrafting ( Brennan 1973 ).

It seems likely that this position could have been maintained indefinitely were it not for the way in which the use of Section 4 the Vagrancy Act became intertwined with debates about race relations in London. The development of a co-ordinated campaign against the ‘sus’ laws (as Section 4 had come to be known colloquially) is generally known ( Hall et al. 1978 ). Briefly, however, the campaign group ‘Scrap SUS’ was originally formed in Deptford (London) in 1978 by parents, community workers, left-wing MPs and others who had become concerned at the way in which the Vagrancy Act was being used to regulate the presence of young black men on the streets. Speaking at the group’s inaugural meeting, Paul Boateng (then working at the Paddington Law Centre) averred ‘we’ve got to learn, as a community, how to come together and how to fight these cases […] to show the police that, never mind the sus Act, if they attack our community, we are not going to lie down and let them do it’ ( BPOCAS 1978 : 1). Opposition grew rapidly, aided by extensive press coverage, and Lord Avebury introduced the Suspected Persons (Abolition) Bill to the House of Lords later the same year. In formulating its position on the Bill, the Home Office consulted widely, and opinions among the police and civil servants remained resolute.

C4 Division of the Home Office consulted with Chief Constables and concluded that ‘the views of chief officers on the general need for the provision have not changed’ and that ‘they would undoubtedly regard its abolition […] in the absence of a satisfactory law on attempted theft […] as a surrender to minority interests […] not concerned with upholding law and order’ ( Thomas 1978 ). Noting the significance of Section 4 as ‘one of the few provisions which permits crimes to be prevented, as opposed to being detected after the event’, the Home Office advised that ‘while the Government had some sympathy with those who sought to legislate to abolish the offence’, it would not want it removed ‘precipitately, before all the implications had been carefully considered and catered for’ ( Secretary of State 1978 ).

There was some strong support in the Lords. Lord Gardiner, for example, argued it was untenable that ‘a man of unblemished character can be sent to prison for three months without right of trial by jury, when he has not committed any criminal offence and cannot even be convicted of an attempt to commit a criminal offence, merely because there is evidence that he intends to do so’ ( Cashmore and Troyna 2013 : 109). In the end, the Bill failed but pressure continued unabated. In the light of the fact that use of Section 4 seemed primarily confined to London (and only some areas of London at that), the Home Affairs Committee of the House of Commons recommended in May 1980 that the offence of loitering with intent should be abolished without delay. In 1981 the Criminal Attempts Act removed Section 4 from the statute book.

This article has analysed the genesis and long history of the power to arrest and convict on suspicion of intent. It has argued that ‘pre-emptive’ action under Section 4 of the Vagrancy Act became a key aspect of police practice during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. A long-term analysis of judicial returns (as shown in Figure 4 ) demonstrates that these powers were in constant, significant use—particularly in London and the larger industrial cities—for over 150 years. Evaluation of printed and archival records, case law and press reports has shown that, although periodically challenged by both the judiciary and the public, senior police officers (backed by the Home Office) energetically and successfully defended police use of Section 4 on many occasions. Three broad conclusions may be drawn from this analysis.

Section 4 Vagrancy Act (1824) offences, 1857–1979. Source: Compiled from annual judicial criminal statistics, published within British Parliamentary Papers. Total represents combined figures for the offences of ‘found on inclosed [sic] premises possessing lockpicks etc]’ and ‘frequenting’. Data for the periods of the First World War and the Second World War have been omitted from the graph as conscription and changes in both policing and the collection of statistics mean that the figures are both artificially low and unrepresentative. The dotted line represents the average for the whole period – 4,349 cases per annum.

First, debates within the criminological literature on the rise of the ‘preventive state’, as well as research focussed on the supposedly-recent advent of a ‘pre-crime’ approach to crime control, need take into account the long-term evolution of preventive/pre-emptive police powers. Historical analysis demonstrates that prevention meant far more than just deterrence in relation to police practice in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Not only were the police a significant component of the state’s preventive endeavour, a pre-emptive approach to the control of certain types of crime developed much earlier than currently acknowledged. Referring back to McCulloch and Wilson (2015) , many of the elements they identify as intrinsic to an emerging pre-crime approach, such as ‘suspicious identity’ being ‘the basis for coercive state intervention and/or criminal liability’ and ‘acts that are potentially criminal being unspecified and unclear’ (2015: 9) would seem to apply to the police’s use of Section 4 of the Vagrancy Act. This is not to deny that significant changes are currently underway in relation to the state’s mechanisms for the control of undesirable and potentially dangerous behaviours but rather to argue that these changes are perhaps not as abrupt as currently described. If recent developments in pre-emptive police powers are seen as building on longer-term practices, then their likely future trajectory will become easier to assess.

Second, acknowledgement that policing has long had a ‘pre-emptive’ aspect is important to analyses of police culture. Arguably, the occupational culture of the police is a significant determinant of the actions of individual officers, who are ‘rarely guided by legal precepts’ ( Waddington 1999 : 287). Although the power to arrest and convict on suspicion developed from the c.1750s, it is highly significant that it found its fullest expression in the early 1820s, just prior to the extensive expansion and professionalization of policing in the nineteenth century. Although it is likely that Section 4 of the Vagrancy Act (1824) merely codified what had been existing practice among law-enforcement officials for centuries, its inclusion in the criminal law reforms of the 1820s gave the police significant (and, at times, arbitrary) powers of arrest and conviction. The discretionary deployment of these powers undoubtedly helped to inculcate in the New Police a sense of ‘ownership’ over certain classes/categories of citizenry, with lasting results. By the late 1970s, the use of the term ‘police property’ in relation to certain marginalized and peripheral social groups was firmly entrenched in police culture ( Holdaway 1983 : 86–9), arguably underpinning the historical development of a ‘social disciplinary’ mode of policing ( Choongh 1998 : 625–6). By the time Section 4 of the Vagrancy Act was dismantled in 1981, police culture in England had become accustomed to the deployment of broad, discretionary powers of arrest and conviction. The perceived vacuum left by the removal of Section 4 legitimated a demand for similar inchoate powers, which arguably found its expression in legislation such as Section 5 of the Public Order Act (1986) and Section 44 of the Terrorism Act.

Third, this article has also advanced an implicit, methodological conclusion. There has recently been a growing awareness of the value of historical research in challenging the pronounced tendency within some criminological literature to claim that recent decades have witnessed a radical break with the past in the criminal justice sphere (see Zedner 2006 as a response to Bayley and Shearing 1996 ). However, while valuable, the deployment of historical sources and methods in criminological debates has to date usually been ‘non-linear’. That is to say, concentrated ‘slices’ of history (usually a few decades) have been used as evidence either that aspects of criminal justice in the past were very different to the present ( Bosworth 2001 ) or that approaches to crime control in the past were remarkably similar to the present ( Rigakos and Hadden 2001 ). Although such non-linear uses of the past are very useful in problematizing contemporary concerns, they are arguably less useful at explaining them. This article can (by contrast) be read as a demonstration of the utility of long-term, linear analysis over a period of centuries. Rather than comparing the present with a relatively narrow ‘slice’ of the past, it has attempted to trace a continuous thread in one aspect of police practice from the 1750s to the later twentieth century, demonstrating thereby how the historical roots of police culture and practice can have implications still keenly felt in the early twenty-first century.

Adolphus J . ( 1824 ), Observations on the Vagrant Act and Some Other Statutes and on the Powers and Duties of Justices of the Peace . J. Major .

Google Scholar

Google Preview

Ashworth A. and Zedner L . ( 2014 ), Preventive Justice . Oxford University Press .

Bayley D. and Shearing C . ( 1996 ), ‘The Future of Policing?’ , Law and Society Review , 30 : 585 – 606 .

Beattie J . ( 2012 ), The First English Detectives. The Bow Street Runners and the Police of London, 1750–1840 . Oxford University Press .

Bosworth M . ( 2001 ), ‘The Past as a Foreign Country. Some Methodological Implications of Doing Historical Criminology’ , British Journal of Criminology , 41 : 431 – 42 .

BPOCAS . ( 1978 ), Organ of the Steering Committee: Black Peoples Organisations Campaign against SUS 1978 (1) , East End (Offset) Ltd .

Brennan T . ( 1973 ), Home Office Letter to J M Cartwright, Law Commission dated 8 February 1973 . [Manuscript]. BC3/136. The National Archives .

Browne A . ( 1862 ), ARREST: Magistrates Urge Increase of Powers of Arrest of Police in Case of Suspected Persons (1861–1862) . [Manuscript]. HO45/7210. The National Archives .

Carter M . ( 1937 ), Detectives’ Conference Minutes . [Manuscript]. HO144/21040. The National Archives .

Cashmore E. and Troyna B . ( 2013 ), Black Youth in Crisis . Routledge Revivals .

Cheshire Constables Act . ( 1829 ), (10 Geo. 4 c.97). HMSO .

Choongh S . ( 1998 ), ‘Policing the Dross. A Social Disciplinary Model of Policing’ , British Journal of Criminology , 38 : 623 – 34 .

Cohen v. Black . ( 1942 ), 2 All ER 299.

Clark J . ( 2012 ), The National Council for Civil Liberties and the Policing of Interwar Politics . Manchester University Press .

Cobbett W . ( 1817 ), Cobbett’s Parliamentary History , Vol. 29 (T.C. Hansard).

Debrett J . ( 1792 ), Parliamentary Register . John Debrett .

Depredations on the Thames Act . ( 1800 ), (39 & 40 Geo. 3 c.87s.12). HMSO .

Disorderly Houses Act . (1751/2), (25 Geo. 2 c.36s.12). HMSO .

Dodsworth F . ( 2007 ), ‘Police and the Prevention of Crime: Commerce, Temptation and the Corruption of the Body Politic, from Fielding to Colquhoun’ , British Journal of Criminology , 47 : 439 – 54 .

Dowson O . ( 1937 ), ‘ Committee on Detective Work Sub-Committee E ’, Minutes of First Meeting held on 12 January. [Manuscript] HO144/21040. The National Archives .

Drummond M . ( 1936 ), Secret Memorandum: Stops and Suspected Persons . [Manuscript] MEPO 2/2539. The National Archives .

Dubber M . ( 2013 ), ‘Preventive Justice: The Quest for Principle’ , in A. Ashworth L. Zedner and P. Tomlin , eds, Prevention and the Limits of the Criminal Law , 47 – 68 . Oxford University Press .

Duggan K . ( 2015 ), ‘ Communal Justice in Thirteenth-Century Britain ’, unpublished PhD thesis, King’s College London .

Edwards A. and Hughes G . ( 2009 ), ‘The Preventive Turn and the Promotion of Safer Communities in England and Wales’ , in A. Crawford (ed.), Crime Prevention Policies in Comparative Perspective , 62 – 85 . Willan Publishing .

Emsley C . ( 1996 ), The English Police . Longman .

——. ( 2007 ), ‘Sergeant Goddard: The Story of a Rotten Apple or a Diseased Orchard?’ , in A. Srebnik and R. Levy , eds, Crime and Culture: An Historical Perspective , 85 – 104 . Ashgate .

Fielding H . ( 1751 ), An Enquiry into the Causes of the late Increase of Robbers .

Game P . ( 1936 ), Memorandum to S.S. on Suspected Persons . [Manuscript] MEPO 3/2539. The National Archives .

Garland D . ( 2001 ), The Culture of Control. Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society . Oxford University Press .

Godfrey B. Cox D. and Farrall S . ( 2010 ), Serious Offenders. A Historical Study of Habitual Criminals . Oxford University Press .

Habitual Criminals Act . ( 1869 ), (32 and 33 Vict. c.99). HMSO .

Hall S. Roberts B. Clarke J. Jefferson T. and Critcher C ( 1978 ) Policing the Crisis: Mugging, the State, and Law and Order . Macmillan .

Hartley v. Ellnor . ( 1917 ), All ER Rep 260.

Hitchcock T . ( 2012 ), ‘Re-negotiating the Bloody Code: the Gordon Riots and the Transformation of Popular Attitudes to the Criminal Justice System’ , in I. Haywood J. Seed (eds), The Gordon Riots: Politics, Culture and Insurrection in Late Eighteenth-Century Britain , 185 – 202 . Cambridge University Press .

Holdaway S . ( 1983 ), Inside the British Police: A Force at Work . Blackwell .

Home Office . ( 1936 ), Criminal Statistics England and Wales 1935 . HMSO .

Howe R . ( 1945 ), Letter Marked 225/45/1339 . 11 December. [Manuscript]. MEPO 3/2384. The National Archives .

Ingram . ( 1885 ), Construction of Word Frequenting . Letter, 23 January. [Manuscript] HO45/9650/A38084.

Innes J . ( 2009 ), Inferior Politics. Social Problems and Social Policies in Eighteenth-Century Britain . Oxford University Press .

Kendall N . ( 1937 a), Note to Solicitor . 14 April. [Manuscript]. MEPO3/1349. The National Archives .

——. ( 1937 b), Letter to Under Secretary of State, Home Office . 18 October. [Manuscript]. HO144/21040. The National Archives .

Knepper P. and Scicluna S . ( 2010 ), ‘Historical Criminology and the Imprisonment of Women in Nineteenth Century Malta’ , Theoretical Criminology , 14 : 407 – 24 .

Law Society . ( 1968 ), Memorandum on the Vagrancy Act of 1824 . [Manuscript]. BC3/136. The National Archives .

Lawrence P . ( 2011 ), The New Police in the Nineteenth Century . Ashgate .

——. ( 2012 ), ‘History, Criminology and the ‘Use’ of the Past’ , Theoretical Criminology , 16 : 313 – 28 .

Ledwith v. Roberts . ( 1936 ), All England Law Reports , Vol. 3 , 570 .

London Streets Act . ( 1771 ), (11 Geo. 3 c.54. s.15). HMSO .

Mathews T . ( 1945 ), Letter D.P.P. to Ronald Howe . 17 December 1943 . [Manuscript]. MEPO 3/2384. The National Archives .

McCulloch J. and Wilson D . ( 2015 ), Pre-crime: Pre-emption, Precaution and the Future . Routledge .

Metropolitan Police Act . ( 1829 ), (10 Geo. 4 c.44). HMSO .

——. ( 1839 ), (2 and 3 Vict. c.47). HMSO .

Middlesex Justices Act . ( 1792 ), (32 Geo. 3 c.53s.17). HMSO .

Moriarty C . ( 1936 ), Suspected Persons: Letter to S. Baker, Home Office . 30 November. [Manuscript]. HO45/7210. The National Archives .

National Council for Civil Liberties . ( 1936 ). Notes Prepared for the International Conference in Paris . DCL/9/36. University of Hull, Brynmor Jones Library Archives .

Neocleous M . ( 2000 ), ‘Social Police and the Mechanisms of Prevention. Patrick Colquhoun and the Condition of Poverty’ , British Journal of Criminology , 40 : 710 – 26 .

Night Poaching Act . ( 1800 ), (39 & 40 Geo. 3 c.87s.12). HMSO .

Nolan M . ( 1825 ), Treatise of the Laws for the Relief and Settlement of the Poor . Strahan .

Police Review . ( 1936 ), ‘Editorial’. 27 November.

Preservation of the Peace Act . ( 1812 ), (52 Geo 3. c.17s.30). HMSO .

Prevention of Crimes Act . ( 1871 ), (34 and 35 Vict. c.112). HMSO .

R . v. Clarke . ( 1950 ), 1 All ER 546.

Rawlings v. Smith . ( 1938 ), 1 All ER 11.

Report of the Royal Commission on Police Powers and Procedures . ( 1929 ). HMSO .

Rigakos G. and Hadden R . ( 2001 ), ‘Crime, Capitalism and the “Risk Society”: Towards the Same Olde Modernity?’ , Theoretical Criminology , 5 : 61 – 84 .

Roberts M. J. D . ( 1991 ), ‘Reshaping the Gift Relationship. The London Mendicity Society and the Suppression of Begging in England 1818–1869’ , International Review of Social History , 36 : 201 – 31 .

Robinson C . ( 1937 ), Handwritten Note on Folder marked ‘Minutes: Suspected Person Loitering’ . [Manuscript]. HO144/21040. The National Archives .

Robinson W. M . ( 1825 ), The Magistrate’s Pocket-Book . Thomas Davison .

Rogers N . ( 1991 ), ‘Policing the Poor in Eighteenth-Century London: The Vagrancy Laws and Their Administration’ , Histoire Sociale/Social History , 24 : 127 – 47 .

Rundle S . ( 1945 ), File Marked ‘Subject: Vagrancy Act, 1824, Section 4 . 10 December. [Manuscript]. MEPO 3/2384. The National Archives .

Secretary of State . ( 1978 ), Memo from Secretary of State to the Legislation Committee . [Manuscript]. HO 376/206. The National Archives .

Steiker C . ( 1998 ), ‘The Limits of the Preventive State’ , Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology , 88 : 771 – 808 .

Stewart-Brown R . ( 1936 ), The Serjeants of the Peace in Medieval England and Wales . Manchester University Press .

Thomas Q . ( 1978 ), Memorandum. 9 November. [Manuscript]. HO 376/206. The National Archives .

Times . ( 1824 ), Police. Bow Street . 25 August, p.3a.

——. ( 1884 ), Courts . 22 December.

Trewman’s Exeter Flying Post . ( 1825 ). Police . 2 February.

Waddington P. A. J . ( 1999 ), ‘Police (Canteen) Sub-Culture: An Appreciation’ , British Journal of Criminology , 39 : 287 – 309 .

——. ( 2005 ), ‘Slippery Slopes and Civil Libertarian Pessimism’ , Policing and Society , 15 : 353 – 75 .

Wood J. C . ( 2013 ), ‘Watching the Detectives (and the Constables): Fearing the Police in 1920s Britain’ , in S. Nicholas and T. O’Malley , eds, Moral Panics, Social Fears, and the Media: Historical Perspectives , 147 – 61 . Routledge .

Working Party on Street Offences . ( 1973 ), Working Papers ‘Being Found on Enclosed Premises’ & ‘Frequenting’ . [Manuscript]. BC3/136. The National Archives .

Zedner L . ( 2006 ), ‘Policing Before and After the Police. The Historical Antecedents of Contemporary Crime Control’ , British Journal of Criminology , 46 : 78 – 96 .

——. ( 2007 ), ‘Pre-crime and Post-criminology?’ , Theoretical Criminology , 11 : 261 – 81 .

The broader scope of the Vagrancy Act 1824 is the subject ongoing research by the author.

Areas included in this calculation are Birmingham, Bolton, Bradford, Huddersfield, Hull, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Sheffield, Wigan and York.

Author notes

Email alerts, citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1464-3529
• Print ISSN 0007-0955
• Copyright © 2024 Centre for Crime and Justice Studies (formerly ISTD)
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

• Australia edition
• International edition
• Europe edition

Thousands of homeless people arrested under archaic Vagrancy Act

Campaigners’ anger as 1,173 held despite ministers’ pledge to scrap legislation

More than 1,000 homeless people have been arrested for sleeping rough or begging since the government pledged to scrap the nearly 200-year-old Vagrancy Act, new figures show.

Freedom of information responses from 29 police forces across England and Wales show officers have arrested 1,173 people since 2021 for offences under the archaic 19th-century act including “vagrant being found in or upon enclosed premises” and “begging and wandering around”.

Ministers have been holding off removing the Vagrancy Act from the statute book until they draw up replacement laws, with legislation repealing the act lacking an implementation date.

But prime minister Rishi Sunak’s antisocial behaviour plan, which was unveiled last week, includes a raft of proposals to replace the act with new powers for local authorities and the police to move on homeless people “causing nuisance” by obstructing shop doorways and begging beside cashpoint machines.

Keir Starmer’s Labour party has also pledged to crack down on antisocial behaviour by giving the police powers to impose new “respect orders” to deal with issues such as street drinking and the harassment of shoppers in town centres.

The Crisis charity said criminalising rough sleeping pushed people who need help and support further to the fringes of society.

“It’s abhorrent that an archaic and punitive piece of legislation is still being used to punish the poorest in society when the UK government has committed, and passed legalisation, to repeal it,” said Matt Downie, Crisis chief executive.

Downie added that simply shunting people from one doorway to the next solved nothing. “We must not find ourselves in a situation where we finally abolish one destructive law only for it to be replaced with another,” he said.

Instead, he called on the government to build genuinely affordable homes, invest in proper support services and ensure that housing benefit covers people’s rents to end homelessness. “We have the solutions to this at our disposal,” said Downie.

Almost 4,000 people have been arrested under vagrancy laws over the past five years, according to the data collated by local government expert Jack Shaw. The Metropolitan Police made 1,666 arrests, more than any other force.

Forces across the country arrested hundreds of people for sleeping in abandoned or empty buildings over the last five years.

The West Midlands, Lancashire, and West Yorkshire police made more than 300 arrests for “vagrants found in an enclosed building”. Devon and Cornwall made 151 arrests for begging over the same period.

after newsletter promotion

Shaw added: “Criminalising the homeless does little to address the root causes of homelessness – and worse, homeless people may disengage with services that exist to support them if they feel unfairly targeted.”

The Vagrancy Act was passed in 1824 to clear makeshift camps of discharged soldiers and sailors left without income or accommodation in the aftermath of the Napoleonic wars.

The police have used it ever since to move on rough sleepers and those begging, with thousands of prosecutions between 2008 and 2018. The government pledged to scrap the legislation in 2021 following a cross-party rebellion in the House of Lords and a grassroots campaign by homeless charities.

A government spokesperson said: “We are very clear that we are not criminalising rough sleeping and the government will repeal the outdated Vagrancy Act.

“However, there are some instances of nuisance behaviour by those begging or sleeping rough that can cause harm or distress to the individuals and the wider public.

“Where this happens the government wants to ensure police forces and local authorities are given the tools to direct vulnerable individuals into support where appropriate and help the public feel safe.”

• Homelessness
• The Observer

Most viewed

Keep up to date with the Big Issue

The leading voice on life, politics, culture and social activism direct to your inbox.

The Vagrancy Act: What is it and why is it being scrapped?

The almost 200-year-old law that makes it a criminal offence to sleep rough in England and Wales has finally been repealed – for now.

Rough sleeping is on the rise. Image: Blodeuwedd/Flickr

The 200-year-old Vagrancy Act that criminalises rough sleeping is no more  

The controversial law, which has already been repealed in Scotland, makes rough sleeping and begging a criminal offence in England and Wales.

Since early 2021, the Westminster government has pledged to scrap the act . Ministers made good on their promise in April 2022 when the Vagrancy Act was repealed as part of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill.

Rough sleeping minister Eddie Hughes MP said: “The Vagrancy Act is outdated and needs replacing, and so I’m delighted to announce today the government will repeal it in full.”

Priti Patel’s bill became the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act when it came into force on June 28, repealing the act for good.

Or so it seemed. The government has held a consultation on what should replace the act – despite the widespread belief that nothing is required to fill the void left by the law’s repeal. Ministers could yet bring replacement powers into law through the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill.

But what is the Vagrancy Act and why is now the right time to scrap it? Let The Big Issue explain.

What is the Vagrancy Act 1824? 

The Vagrancy Act makes it a criminal offence to beg or be homeless on the street in England and Wales.

The law was passed in the summer of 1824 – 197 years ago – and was originally intended to deal with a situation far from the reality of street homelessness in present-day UK.

The Vagrancy Act was initially intended to deal with injured ex-serviceman who had become homeless after the Napoleonic Wars. Their crime after serving their country? “Endeavouring by the exposure of wounds or deformities to obtain or gather alms.. or procure charitable contributions of any nature or kind, under any false or fraudulent pretence” according to the act. This essentially means ex-soldiers were begging and the act was brought in to stop it.

The Vagrancy Act also aimed to punish “every person wandering abroad and lodging in any barn or outhouse, or in any deserted or unoccupied building, or in the open air, or under a tent, or in any cart or waggon”. Namely transient people, typically from Scotland or Ireland, who were considered undesirable. The act also represented a threat to Gypsy, Traveller and Roma communities.

Why were there calls for the Vagrancy Act to be scrapped?

The Vagrancy Act does not deal with homelessness in a compassionate fashion, say its opponents.

It is largely recognised that locking up homeless people does little to solve the root causes of why they are on the street in the first place. Punishments under the act can include a £1,000 fine and the possibility of a criminal record – neither of which do anything to help the person out of homelessness.

Conservative MP for the Cities of London and Westminster Nickie Aiken said the act is “simply no longer fit for purpose” ahead of a Westminster Hall debate on the act in April 2021. 

“It fails to address the acute 21st-century problems that public sector agencies and charities work tirelessly to deal with among the street population,” she said.

It’s a view shared across the political spectrum and in the homelessness sector.

“The idea that just finding yourself sleeping rough should be a criminal offence doesn’t make any sense to me at all,” said former housing secretary Robert Jenrick, who first said the act should be repealed in the House of Commons back in February 2021.

Crisis chief executive Matt Downie told The Big Issue: “Providing rapid access to housing and the support needed to retain that housing, that’s the answer, not pushing people further away from support because they might be arrested. It is completely obscene that the Vagrancy Act still exists today.”

The act was finally scrapped on June 28 when the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act came into force.

What has the government said about the Vagrancy Act?

The Westminster government repeatedly said that the Vagrancy Act should be scrapped before announcing that it would be removed from the statute book as part of the new policing bill.

Robert Jenrick was the first cabinet minister to reveal the government’s plans in the House of Commons.

The former housing secretary said in February 2021 : “It is my opinion that the Vagrancy Act should be repealed. It is an antiquated piece of legislation whose time has been and gone. 

“We should consider carefully whether better, more modern legislation could be introduced to preserve some aspects of it, but the Act itself, I think, should be consigned to history.”

Following Jenrick’s announcement, rough sleeping minister Eddie Hughes said the government was committed to taking prompt action to scrap the act.

But it took almost 15 months for the act to be scrapped.

Despite the government’s commitment, ministers initially knocked back an amendment hoping to scrap the act as part of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill in the House of Lords on November 25 2021.

There has been more progress in 2022.

Peers voted to scrap the Vagrancy Act in the early hours of January 18 with a majority of 43 votes supporting Lord Best’s amendment to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill.

The amendment was scheduled to face an MP vote in the Commons in late February but the government tabled its own amendment to the bill on February 22 to axe the act for good.

The news was celebrated by campaigners. Jenrick, who had been lobbying Priti Patel and Michael Gove to table the amendment, said: “This long overdue reform will reframe the issue of homelessness away from it being a question of criminality, and towards our modern understanding of homelessness as a complex health, housing and social challenge.”

Crisis chief executive Matt Downie added: “For almost two hundred years, the criminalisation of homelessness has shamed our society. But now, at long last, the Vagrancy Act’s days are numbered and not a moment too soon.  

“This offensive law does nothing to tackle rough sleeping, only entrenching it further in our society by driving people further from support. We know there are better, more effective ways to help people overcome their homelessness.”

What should replace the Vagrancy Act?

That is the question that the Westminster government is currently trying to answer.

Ministers held a four-week consultation on what should replace the act, with anyone able to add their thoughts on the issue up until May 5.

Rough sleeping minister Eddie Hughes said: “We must balance our role in providing essential support for vulnerable people with ensuring that we do not weaken the ability of police to protect communities.”

Homelessness charity St Mungo’s welcomed the consultation and called on ministers to listen to people who have lived experience of homelessness when designing replacement measures.

St Mungo’s then-executive director of strategy and development Rebecca Sycamore said: “St Mungo’s will be responding to the consultation. We believe that the act should be replaced with persistent and trauma informed outreach, which was a key recommendation in the Kerslake Commission on Homelessness and Rough Sleeping .”

However, fellow charity Crisis has questioned initial proposals that would replace the act with new penalties for begging. 

Matt Downie, Crisis chief executive, said: “We cannot replace one punitive legislation with another targeting people on the streets. Our core concern is that the proposals are far too wide, could be open to abuse, and lead to people on the streets being punished instead of given the vital help they need. Through our frontline work, we know that an approach based on punishment will drive people away from trying to get support.

 “Instead of focussing on measures that may further penalise people on the streets, the government must instead look at how it can encourage a multi-agency approach. This includes ensuring the police can more effectively work with people in this situation, are given training to enable them to do this, and also looking at what wider support from local authorities and other organisations is needed.”

New legislation introduced by the government has called into question whether the act will actually be scrapped for good.

The Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill features a clause the government to “disregard the repeal of the Act”. It would also allow ministers to create “criminal offences or civil penalties” relating to begging or people deemed to be “rogues and vagabonds”.

Conservative MP Nickie Aiken has tabled an amendment to the bill calling for the clause to be scrapped.

She told The Big Issue: “I was surprised and disappointed to see the clause included in the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill because I thought we’d won the argument quite convincingly.

“I hope it is a genuine mistake and I hope they will withdraw it before the Bill Committee meet. I am confident that if it was taken to a vote I’m not sure the government would win.”

Who opposes the Vagrancy Act?

The campaign standing against the Vagrancy Act has been a long one and homelessness charities, politicians and human rights campaigners have all opposed it in recent years.

Then-Crisis chief executive Jon Sparkes said Jenrick was “absolutely right” to call for the bill to be repealed when the Conservative cabinet minister proposed it in February.

“This archaic piece of law does nothing to tackle the root causes of rough sleeping and instead drives people further away from support,” Sparkes said.

There have been dissenting voices in Westminster too, where the Liberal Democrats’ Layla Moran has been leading the charge.

The Oxfordshire MP has been campaigning against the act since 2018 and introduced a private member’s bill to the House of Commons for a second time in January to repeal the act. 

However, despite backing from MPs across the Commons  — including Green MP Caroline Lucas and former Culture and Sport Secretary Tracey Crouch — private member’s bills have not been heard in the House during the Covid-19 lockdown.

Moran has branded the act “archaic” and “Dickensian” during her campaigning to scrap it.

There have been grassroots efforts to scrap the act too, including from human rights lawyers at Liberty who joined forces with charities Centrepoint, Cymorth Cymru, Homeless Link, Shelter Cymru, St Mungo’s and The Wallich to battle it.

How widely is the Vagrancy Act used?

There are no official annual national statistics on the Vagrancy Act but figures put together through Freedom of Information requests in recent years have shown use of the almost 200-year-old act is declining.

Just 28 per cent of 305 local authorities told homelessness charity Crisis in 2017 they had used arrests under the Vagrancy Act 1824 to tackle begging and rough sleeping while just seven per cent said they planned to use the act for future enforcement.

Meanwhile, Crisis also reported there were 1,320 people prosecuted under the Vagrancy Act in 2018 – a figure that had halved since 2014.

Current vacancies...

Perhaps the most high profile debate over the use of the Vagrancy Act in recent years came in 2018 when then Windsor and Maidenhead Borough Council leader Simon Dudley called on the act to be used to clear rough sleepers from Windsor ahead of a royal wedding .

Dudley cited “an epidemic of rough sleeping and vagrancy in Windsor” when he wrote to Thames Valley Police ahead of Prince Harry’s wedding to Meghan Markle at Windsor Castle.

• Rough Sleeping

Support the Big Issue

Recommended for you

Tory plans to criminalise homeless could 'make route back impossible', ex-rough sleeper warns MPs

Tories should cap service charge rises to stop 'collective scam' before next election, says Gavin Williamson

Local authority funding crisis 'putting future of council housing under threat'

I was made homeless aged 16. Rough sleeping is completely different for women than it is men

Most popular.

Renters pay their landlords' buy-to-let mortgages, so they should get a share of the profits

Exclusive: Disabled people are 'set up to fail' by the DWP in target-driven disability benefits system, whistleblowers reveal

Here's when UK households to start receiving last cost of living payments

Strike dates 2023: From train drivers to NHS doctors, here are the dates to know

Did you see the oscars get our free film archive special here.

Helpline 0808 800 0661

Everything you need to know about The Vagrancy Act

28 August 2020

• Author: Pascale Day, Senior Editorial and Web Officer
• Reading time: 4 minutes
• Rough sleeping
• What Is The Vagrancy Act

According to official legislation , The Vagrancy Act is summarised as “An Act for the Punishment of idle and disorderly Persons, and Rogues and Vagabonds, in England.”

If you think the language sounds kind of archaic, you’d be right: created in the early 19th century, the law means, in today’s terms, that it is an offence in England and Wales to beg or sleep rough.

• (opens in a new window)

Where does it come from?

The origins of The Vagrancy Act finds roots in the end of the Napoleonic Wars, brought to life to make it easier for police to clear the streets of destitute soldiers who were returning home from battle, homeless and penniless. It meant thousands of men who had served their country - many of whom were injured in the fray and left changed, both mentally and physically - were now considered “rogues” and “vagabonds” and charged with an attempt to “obtain or gather alms” through the “exposure of wounds or deformities”. In other words, the government felt that it should be illegal for those soldiers left without homes to use their injuries to ask for food or money. 

It was also used as a way to punish outsiders - transient people from Scotland or Ireland who stopped in England weren’t wanted, and strangers sleeping rough in certain areas were all targeted under the new law. 

Why is it so bad?

The Vagrancy Act was passed in the summer of 1824, which means it is now just shy of its 200th birthday. And if it held any relevance then, it certainly doesn’t now.

At its core, The Vagrancy Act is a way to punish people “in any deserted or unoccupied building, or in the open air, or under a tent, or in any cart or waggon, not having any visible means of subsistence”. Essentially, it criminalises homelessness. For homeless people, both begging and rough sleeping are things out of their control, and the Act does little to get to the root of why people are homeless in the first place.

Plus, those who utilise the Act have been shown to make no efforts to help people move on positively: a 2017 study by Crisis shows that those invoking the Act regularly moved rough sleepers on and banned them from certain locations, all under the threat of arrest - but for the majority of cases, no kind of support was never offered.

This pushes rough sleepers away from help and makes poverty a crime. If charged, it can carry up to a £1000 fine, which makes the chance at escaping homelessness almost impossible.

Homelessness is a hugely critical issue in this moment, particularly with Covid-19 causing a rise in rough sleepers. But even before Coronavirus, numbers were on the rise . In the past five years, homelessness camps have trebled, and councils often have a heavy-handed approach to de-escalating them - which include invoking The Vagrancy Act. Some councils also seize rough sleepers’ property and charge a fine to get it back; Brighton council, for example, charge £25. As we speak, Dorset councillors are attempting to push through proposals that would see homeless people fined for sleeping in doorways .

This means moving rough sleepers on - but  to where ? It’s a vicious cycle. In all the chaos of criminalising homelessness, no effort is made to ensure rough sleepers have the support they need to  really  move on - from sleeping on the streets.

The Vagrancy Act pushes rough sleepers even further away from a better life, not just taking away what small amount of security and finances they may have, but also making vulnerable people distrusting of authorities.

What needs to be done?

The Vagrancy Act was brought into the spotlight in 2018 after Windsor’s council leader demanded  police use their legal powers move on the borough’s homeless people in time for the royal wedding . Since then, there have been strong calls for the government to scrap the antiquated law - which would be great, but until that point there has to be at least a readjustment of attitudes towards homelessness.

There are actual solutions that we can use to reduce homelessness that don’t include punishment or penalisation. Instead, there should be a more comprehensive approach to the UK’s outreach - it should be one that includes support for the issues that many rough sleepers face, such as addiction and mental and physical ill health. At its core, this requires an adjustment of mindsets; until people stop seeing homelessness as an inconvenience - and homeless people  as the makers of their misery - we cannot begin to solve this issue. Being homeless isn't a crime, and we shouldn't treat it as such.

To read more about our stance on The Vagrancy Act, please read our briefing on the subject from 2019 .

Other news stories

Claudia Winkleman tests stars' knowledge at Centrepoint’s Ultimate Pub Quiz

Celebrity stars competed in the Ultimate Pub Quiz to help raise funds for our work to support young people experiencing homelessness.

Point Made Podcast - Mythbusting on youth homelessness

Young people with lived experience of homelessness quash some of the myths and narratives surrounding the subject.

• Care system
• Housing and evictions
• Sofa surfing

Radio 1’s Dean McCullough is announced as Centrepoint’s new Prevention Ambassador

Centrepoint has launched a prevention strategy aimed at identifying and supporting school age pupils in England who could be at risk of homelessness in the future.

Our research

Criminalising Youth Homelessness: Evidence on the impact of the Vagrancy Act and the incoming Criminal Justice Bill

This research examines how Government legislation is being, and may be, used to criminalise young people who are rough sleeping. In doing this, we examine Freedom of Information Request data delineating how the Vagrancy Act has affected…

No expectations: access to and experiences of social and private accommodation for homeless young people

This report explores homeless young people’s access to social and private rented accommodation using the following methods: a survey of front-line staff working for 30 organisations supporting over 800 young people across England;…

Failure to Act: the scale of youth homelessness in the UK

This report presents an analysis of data collected by local authorities during the financial year 2022/2023, and examines the development of the implementation of the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 (HRA) in its fifth year. It also updates…

Government to repeal law allowing police to arrest rough sleepers

• Published 22 February 2022

The government has announced it will repeal the Vagrancy Act, which allows police to arrest people for sleeping rough or begging in England and Wales.

Currently anyone convicted under the law faces a fine of up to £1,000 and a two-year criminal record.

However, ministers have now introduced an amendment to a bill in Parliament which scraps the law.

Rough sleeping minister Eddie Hughes said the law was "outdated and needs replacing".

Liberal Democrat Layla Moran, who has campaigned for the change, said she was "elated that we have consigned this archaic and cruel law to history".

"No one should be criminalised for sleeping rough, especially by a piece of legislation passed in the Georgian era," she added.

I have to live in an Airbnb in my hometown

Stop treating rough sleepers as criminals - MPs

Under the law - which has been repealed in Scotland and Northern Ireland - police have the power to arrest people found in enclosed places or caught begging in public.

The legislation, which dates back to 1824, initially referred to people sleeping in carts and wagons and imposed a penalty of up to a month's hard labour.

In recent years, police forces have said they were moving away from arresting people under the act in favour of more "meaningful solutions".

'Gesture politics'

Speaking in 2019, Supt Ian Green of the West Midlands Police said the law "often ends with people being given fines they can't afford to pay or being sent to prison, which only exacerbates their problems".

In the same year, data obtained by the BBC found that arrests under the act in England had halved between 2016-2018.

Matt Downie, head of homelessness charity Crisis, welcomed the repeal as a "a landmark day in the fight against homelessness".

"This won't build homes but it is a turning point in how people are treated."

Homelessness numbers set to surge, charity warns

No lasting fix for homelessness after Covid scheme

However, writing in The Telegraph Frank Young of the Civitas think tank said a repeal was "little more than short-sighted gesture politics".

He argued police had been able to use the act as "part of a wider approach to tackle rough sleeping and help get people to sort their lives out".

"According to frontline officers, the most recalcitrant and harmful only engage with help when the alternative is to face enforcement."

'Delighted'

The government had long-promised to review of the law - in 2021, minister Eddie Hughes said "its time has been and gone".

However, he said that efforts to review the legislation had been delayed by the pandemic.

Speaking on Tuesday, Mr Hughes said he was "delighted" to be able to announce the repeal of the legislation.

"This is the next step of our action, which has already driven a 37% drop in rough sleeping since 2019," he said, adding that the government would set out a strategy for ending rough sleeping "for good".

The government has said it wants to end rough sleeping by the end of the current Parliament.

MPs will vote on the amendment next week when the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill returns to the House of Commons.

Related Topics

• Eddie Hughes
• Homelessness
• Layla Moran

More on this story

• Published 9 December 2021

• Published 27 August 2021

• Published 14 April 2021

Legal Dictionary

The Law Dictionary for Everyone

The term vagrancy refers to the act of being homeless, without evident means of supporting oneself when able to work. As far as vagrancy laws are concerned, this definition is combined with such acts as loitering , being drunk in public, prostitution , and other actions. Vagrancy has historically been a criminal act, the specifics of which varied by jurisdiction , often at the city or municipal level. To explore this concept, consider the following vagrancy definition.

Definition of Vagrancy

• The crime of wandering about, engaging in criminal acts, without employment or identifiable means of support.

1635-1645       Middle English

History of Vagrancy

A vagrant, also referred to as a “vagabond,” is a homeless person who wanders from place to place, often living by begging money from other people. In historic times, vagrants were considered criminals, whether or not they committed other crimes. In fact, in Colonial America, a person who came into a town and failed to find a job right away was run out of town.

In the Southern states, following the Civil War, vagrancy laws were instituted in an attempt to control freed slaves. With these laws, homeless, unemployed black Americans could be arrested and fined. Without employment, they had no way to pay the fines, so they were interred in convict camps, ostensibly working off their debt. From there, many were taken back into indentured slavery.

Vagrancy Laws

In the early 20th century, vagrancy laws made having no visible means of support a misdemeanor . Arresting someone on a vagrancy charge often had to do with loitering, public drunkenness, or criminal association. Some states expanded vagrancy laws to include vagrants being habitually drunk, associating with prostitutes, gambling professionally, or living on someone else’s welfare benefits.

Challenging Vagrancy Example

In 1970, Jacksonville, Florida law deemed “wandering or strolling around from place to place without any lawful purpose or object” illegal. One night, two white women and two black men, all of whom were employed in some fashion, and most also engaged in educating themselves further, were driving from a restaurant to a nightclub. Jacksonville police saw their vehicle stopped near a used car lot, and questioned all of the young people before arresting them on vague charges related to vagrancy laws.

The police said they were not racially motivated in these arrests, though their charge of “prowling by auto” seemed a stretch. The convictions were appealed, and Florida’s vagrancy laws made their way before the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court voided the laws as being too vague – they did not give a person fair notice that something they were doing was an illegal act.

In its ruling, the Court made the point that the law’s prohibition against “nightwalking” attempts to make illegal a perfectly normal pastime. Further, the Court stated, “We know, however, from experience that sleepless people often walk at night, perhaps hopeful that sleep-inducing relaxation will result.”

Florida’s attempt to specify that the law applied to people “wandering or strolling … without any lawful purpose or object,” or those “neglecting all lawful business and habitually spending their time by frequenting … places where alcoholic beverages are sold or served,” literally encompasses a great many golf club and city club members.

While walking, strolling, and wandering may be the setting for certain crimes, it also comprises perfectly normal activities that are none of the police’s business. The Court ruled that Florida’s vagrancy laws could not stand, as they encouraged “arbitrary and erratic arrests and convictions,” giving “unfettered discretion” to the police.

Vagrancy and Criminalizing Homelessness and Poverty

Vagrancy laws, where they exist, prohibit such things as loitering, panhandling, sleeping outdoors in public places, gambling, prostitution, and even fortune telling. They also prohibit, however, being a certain type of person, such as being:

• A prostitute

Statutes that regulate being something , rather than doing something are laws that govern “status crimes.” Many status laws have been deemed unenforceable by higher courts under two premises: (1) they amount to cruel and unusual punishment, and (2) they are vague.

Cruel and Unusual Punishment

The idea behind the cruel and unusual punishment issue is that most people aren’t unemployed or homeless because they want to be. Punishing someone – especially by jailing them – for experiencing a complete financial calamity, or for having a mental or physical illness, or for having become addicted to a drug, is simply unfair, adding insult to injury.

Every law in the United States must be written in a way that an ordinary person can figure out just what acts are prohibited, or what acts they are required to do, in order to avoid breaking the law. As in the above example of Florida’s vagrancy laws, failing to clearly state what constitutes a crime leaves room for police officers and judges to arbitrarily enforce or ignore the law.

Breaking Down the Vagaries of Vagrancy

In modern times, most jurisdictions have sought to clean up their laws, replacing the vagueness of vagrancy statutes with laws specifically addressing each undesired activity. One of the most common of these statutes attempts to curb loitering. The definition of loitering is the act of staying in a particular public place for a long time with no valid purpose. This gives business owners and others the ability to keep people from just hanging out in front of their establishments, for instance, harassing customers and passersby.

Public intoxication and disorderly conduct are both illegal, and entail being drunk or under the influence in public, and engaging in activities that disturb the peace of others nearby. These laws require police officers to specify where the arrest took place, and just what the offender was doing to infringe on other people’s right to have a peaceful life.

Panhandling, which is the act of accosting people on the street to beg for money, has become a particularly detested activity in recent years. As some people have made a significant amount of money taking advantage of people’s kindhearted generosity to those in need, the number of panhandlers stationing themselves on street corners has increased.

Aggressive panhandlers fill their coffers by asking or badgering people for donations, often appealing to people’s sympathy. This may be done verbally, though many now use handwritten signs, the presence of children or pets, and other non-verbal appeals. Because of the coercive nature of such panhandling, and the profuse use of this type of begging to “earn a living,” most jurisdictions have established anti-panhandling laws.

All of these laws, which replace catchall vagrancy laws, seek to reduce specific undesirable and harmful acts, rather than criminalizing the act of being a certain way.

Example of Vagrancy vs Specific Laws

Hubert injured his back six years ago. With no health insurance, he was unable to get the treatment he needed, he lost his job when he became unable to perform his duties. Hubert’s life spiraled out of control from there, and he ended up homeless, finding meals once a day at a homeless shelter, but sleeping on the street most nights.

He soon joined a group of other homeless men, which spend their days hanging out in a park, asking passersby for money in order to buy food, or spend a night in a cheap motel. While the city’s old vagrancy law would allow police to randomly pick up homeless people for hanging out in a public place while being poor, that is no longer the case. In this example of vagrancy, the city’s laws allow the police to arrest people for panhandling – hanging out in the park, or on public streets – asking passersby for money.

Lawsuit Filed Against Vagrants

In 2007, the owner of a posh Madison Avenue antiques shop filed a $1 million civil lawsuit against a group of vagrants – homeless men who routinely hung out in front of his business. After more than two years of putting up with the group of “filthy” men making themselves at home in front of his establishment, owner Karl Kemp felt let down by police who did nothing about the problem.

Kemp’s lawsuit complained of the constant presence of one homeless man, with his “island of filthy belongings,” and a group of other unnamed people, who used the sidewalk in front of his establishment as a spittoon, a urinal, and a dressing room. Kemps complaint puts forth that he pays a premium price for the location, which is located “within the heart of New York’s most exclusive Madison Avenue shopping district,” alongside such upscale retailers as Prada and Gucci; yet his customers were forced to walk by and through the group of vagrants.

Kemp attempted to soften his position, which some saw as uncharitable, by noting that he was concerned for the health of the group, as they were often there during very cold weather. He continued to make his point, however, that the vagrants slept on the sidewalk, drank alcohol from open bottles, urinated on the sidewalk or building, and verbally harassed would-be patrons of the antiques store.

Related Legal Terms and Issues

• Civil Lawsuit – A lawsuit brought about in court when one person claims to have suffered a loss due to the actions of another person.
• Homeless – The state of being without permanent housing.
• Jurisdiction – The legal authority to hear legal cases and make judgments; the geographical region of authority to enforce justice.
• Loitering – The act of lingering aimlessly in or about a place.
• Prostitution – The act of engaging in sexual activity in exchange for money.

Karl's story. '‘Arresting people for being homeless only made them stay homeless.’

“I was first arrested for the Vagrancy Act in 2008. I just asked someone for 20p so I could use the phone. Two police saw it and arrested me on the spot for begging. I spent the night in the cells and was in court the next morning. They just fined me and sent me straight back to the streets. No more help. Nothing.

Arresting people for being homeless only made them stay homeless. You felt like a criminal, so you end up shutting down and just relying on the homeless community instead. It becomes learned behaviour. I tried my best to stay out of sight. You found little places to hide away like garages, air vents, and parks. Where I live now there’s a park I walk through early in the morning with my dog and they’ve started sniffing at something on the floor, and I realised it’s a person. They tell me they’d been moved out of town. But they’ll only go back. They have to.

You get mental fatigue trying to access any kind of support services. It’s like the whole system is set up to perpetuate homelessness and crime, not to end it. People are also begging just to pay bills, or to get a room in hostel, or get enough for a permanent address for when that hostel moves them on. At the end of the day if someone’s begging on the street, that person needs help, not being arrested for it.

When Crisis came to the hostel I was staying in three years ago , I was in such a mentally bad place that it took six months for me to talk with their support worker, but I was so sick of everything by then that I gradually opened up. They got me in touch with a mental health worker, then help with housing and benefits, even my English and maths. I was on a countdown to go back to jail or go back to the streets, but they started giving me the tools to help myself. If it wasn’t for Crisis I wouldn’t have known about those services. They invested in me and got a human being at the end of it.  

I try to explain to people the horrors of the living on the streets, and how much difference it makes for someone to treat you like a human being. The best thing I can remember is silly little things like people saying good morning and asking if I was ok. It would be brilliant if the Vagrancy Act could be repealed. That would help turn public opinion back to helping homeless people instead of punishing them. At the end of the day the police only do as they’re told. People always says it’s complex to end homelessness. But it’s not. It’s only complex for homeless people living on the streets. The solutions to solve it are already there.”

Karl, Liverpool.

The Vagrancy Act does nothing to resolve the root causes of homelessness. In fact, it’s more likely to push someone further from the vital services that help them to move away from the streets. The Government is soon to review the Vagrancy Act, but hasn’t said that they will repeal it – yet. Until they do, vulnerable people will continue to be pushed even further from support. That’s why we’re calling on the UK Government to #ScraptheAct once and for all.   Sign up to the campaign here and find out how you can be involved.

By sharing stories we can change attitudes and build a movement for permanent, positive change. Stand against homelessness and help us end it for good.

What can I do to end homelessness?

• with Facebook
• with Twitter
• with Instagram
• Campaign / Volunteer / Donate
• Learn more about homelessness

Related Stories

• Skip to main content
• Skip to navigation

legislation.gov.uk

• Browse Legislation
• New Legislation
• Coronavirus Legislation
• Changes To Legislation

Search Legislation

Vagrancy act 1824, you are here:.

• UK Public General Acts
• 1824 c. 83 (Regnal. 5_Geo_4)
• Table of contents
• Table of Contents

Print Options

What version.

• Latest available (Revised)
• Original (As enacted)

Opening Options

• Open whole Act

More Resources

• Original: King's Printer Version

Changes to legislation:

Changes to legislation.

Revised legislation carried on this site may not be fully up to date. Changes and effects are recorded by our editorial team in lists which can be found in the ‘Changes to Legislation’ area. Where those effects have yet to be applied to the text of the legislation by the editorial team they are also listed alongside the affected provisions when you open the content using the Table of Contents below.

Changes and effects yet to be applied to :

• s. 3 words substituted by 2003 c. 44 Sch. 32 para. 145
• s. 4 words substituted by 2003 c. 44 Sch. 32 para. 146(2)
• s. 5 repealed by 2003 c. 44 Sch. 37 Pt. 9
• s. 10 repealed by 2003 c. 44 Sch. 37 Pt. 9

Changes and effects yet to be applied to the whole Act associated Parts and Chapters:

• Act repealed by 2022 c. 32 s. 81(1)

Whole provisions yet to be inserted into this Act (including any effects on those provisions):

• s. 4(1) s. 4 renumbered as s. 4(1) by 2003 c. 44 Sch. 32 para. 146(3)
• s. 4(2) inserted by 2003 c. 44 Sch. 32 para. 146(3)

Introductory Text

1, 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3. Persons committing certain offences how to be punished.

4. Persons committing certain offences to be deemed rogues and vagabonds.

5. Who shall be deemed incorrigible rogues.

6. Any person may apprehend offenders.

7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

10. Power of sessions to detain and keep to hard labour, and punish by whipping rogues and vagabonds and incorrigible rogues.

11, 12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14. Persons aggrieved may appeal to the next sessions.

15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

18. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

19. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

20. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

21. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

22. Not to extend to repeal any Act in force in Scotland or Ireland relative to the removal of poor, &c.

Back to top

Options/Help

Print table of contents.

• PDF table of contents
• Web page table of contents

Print The Whole Act

• PDF The Whole Act
• Web page The Whole Act

Legislation is available in different versions:

Latest Available (revised): The latest available updated version of the legislation incorporating changes made by subsequent legislation and applied by our editorial team. Changes we have not yet applied to the text, can be found in the ‘Changes to Legislation’ area.

Original (As Enacted or Made): The original version of the legislation as it stood when it was enacted or made. No changes have been applied to the text.

Different options to open legislation in order to view more content on screen at once

Access essential accompanying documents and information for this legislation item from this tab. Dependent on the legislation item being viewed this may include:

• the original print PDF of the as enacted version that was used for the print copy
• lists of changes made by and/or affecting this legislation item
• confers power and blanket amendment details
• all formats of all associated documents
• correction slips
• links to related legislation and further information resources

Timeline of Changes

This timeline shows the different points in time where a change occurred. The dates will coincide with the earliest date on which the change (e.g an insertion, a repeal or a substitution) that was applied came into force. The first date in the timeline will usually be the earliest date when the provision came into force. In some cases the first date is 01/02/1991 (or for Northern Ireland legislation 01/01/2006). This date is our basedate. No versions before this date are available. For further information see the Editorial Practice Guide and Glossary under Help.

Use this menu to access essential accompanying documents and information for this legislation item. Dependent on the legislation item being viewed this may include:

Click 'View More' or select 'More Resources' tab for additional information including:

• New site design
• Accessibility
• Privacy Notice

Cookies on GOV.UK

We use some essential cookies to make this website work.

We’d like to set additional cookies to understand how you use GOV.UK, remember your settings and improve government services.

We also use cookies set by other sites to help us deliver content from their services.

You have accepted additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

You have rejected additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

• Housing, local and community
• Planning and building
• House building

Levelling Up Home Building Fund: Windyridge Property Investments

Watch our film to see how Homes England has supported a new SME developer to deliver a scheme of starter homes in West Bromwich.

Levelling Up Home Building Fund Developer Case Study: Windyridge

In March 2022 Homes England supported Windyridge Property Investments, a new entrant SME developer, with a £1.4 million development loan to deliver Sienna Way, a scheme comprising of 9 homes based in West Bromwich. As a first-time developer, Windyridge had experienced numerous funding barriers before receiving support from the Levelling Up Home Building Fund. Funding was legally contracted in 54 days from credit approval, demonstrating Homes England’s ability to provide SMEs access to much needed funding at pace.  

Our regional team worked closely with the developer to design a flexible funding structure that incorporated possible delays in build completions and generous timeframes to sell the homes.  

Completed in July 2023, Sienna Way meets the latest energy efficiency standards and provides a high-quality living environment for first time buyers, key workers and young families. Features include private courtyards, electric car charging points and underfloor heating. The scheme uses locally sourced, sustainable products, minimising waste in the construction process. 

Jatinder Singh Gakhal, Managing Director, Windyridge said:

As a new SME housing developer, we found securing development funding particularly challenging given the macro-economic factors affecting the construction industry. However, thanks to the team at Homes England, who provided exceptional support and guidance throughout the application process, we swiftly secured a development loan to fully fund our scheme. We strongly recommend SMEs consider Homes England funding to help unlock their future development sites.

More information about the Levelling Up Home Building Fund can be found on our  guidance page , and you can also arrange a call with one of our regional specialists by: 

• calling 0300 1234 500  
• emailing   [email protected]   
• completing a   short online form

Related content

Is this page useful.

• Yes this page is useful
• No this page is not useful

Help us improve GOV.UK

Don’t include personal or financial information like your National Insurance number or credit card details.

To help us improve GOV.UK, we’d like to know more about your visit today. We’ll send you a link to a feedback form. It will take only 2 minutes to fill in. Don’t worry we won’t send you spam or share your email address with anyone.