CHAPTER TWO – DEFINITION OF A ‘GANG’
For practitioners instructed in criminal cases involving gang related investigations, much will depend on the approach taken by the parties and the Court to the interpretation of key terms, particularly the ‘gang’.
Academic and legal definitions
The Eurogang Project, a network of international youth group / gang experts and researchers, defined the street gang as “any durable, street-oriented youth group whose identity includes involvement in legal activity.” This is widely regarded as the leading definition and is used by gang experts and researchers around the word, including in the UK.
In a 2009 report, the definition was largely adopted by a working group of UK experts at The Centre for Social Justice, who proposed the following general definition:
“A relatively durable, predominantly street-based group of young people who (1) see themselves (and are seen by others) as a discernible group, (2) engage in a range of criminal activity and violence, (3) identify with or lay claim over territory (4) have some form of identifying structural feature, and (5) are in conflict with other, similar gangs.”
The Centre for Social Justice, ‘Dying to Belong’, February 2009
Unfortunately there is no universal legal definition of the term ‘gang’ within the criminal justice system of England and Wales. This is despite often substantial use of the term by the police, prosecution and judiciary in criminal cases.
It is worth noting that the term ‘gang-related’ does appear in primary legislation. Under s.34(5) of the Policing and Crime Act 2009 (‘PCA 2009’), behaviour is considered ‘gang-related’ if it occurred in the course of, or was otherwise related to, the activities of a group that:
- Consisted of at least three people, and
- Had one or more characteristics that enabled its members to be identified by others as a group.
The type of activities that the legislation envisaged were “engaging in or encouraging or assisting gang-related violence or gang related drug-dealing activity” (s.34(3) PCA 2009). While the PCA 2009 provides some assistance, it is a definition drafted exclusively for the purpose of determining civil applications for gang injunctions. It amounts to a very broad definition and was undoubtedly drafted having regard for the lower evidential thresholds applicable within the civil law framework of injunctions. Unsurprisingly it has not been adopted as the standard in criminal proceedings. For a full discussion of the law and procedure in relation to gang injunctions see Chapter 10.
Characteristics of a ‘gang’
The police and prosecution frequently point to certain characteristics when seeking to prove both the existence of a gang and an individual’s association or membership of that gang.
The starting point will normally be evidence of self-identification and association by a group of individuals with a particular territory or apparent gang name. The alleged gang will often, but not always, have incorporated a post code area or housing estate into their identification e.g. Woolwich Boys, London Fields, E5 etc. Identification of the gang may be demonstrated by members wearing particular colours, making specific hand signs or gestures, and the drawing of graffiti tags. Furthermore, practitioners working in this area will often be presented with videos and images from social media platforms in which the police and prosecution claim the material shows an association between the individual and a particular gang.
The prosecution frequently relies upon evidence of previous criminal behaviour, whether it resulted in conviction or not, to assist with establishing both the existence of the gang and the individual’s membership of the gang. The root cause of much gang activity is unquestionably drug supply. Evidence of an individual’s previous involvement in drug supply, particularly if linked with other alleged gang members, inevitably forms part of prosecution submissions. Members of gangs frequently carry weapons, both for protection and to engage in retaliatory attacks on rival gangs. Therefore, previous incidents in which the individual has been found in possession of weapons, ranging from small knives to machetes, will often be set out in prosecution applications. For a period a few years ago the carrying of acid and other corrosive substances also frequently formed part of prosecution submissions on gang membership. However, such submissions have largely fallen away in recent years following a significant drop off in incidents of so called ‘acid attacks’, largely credited to the imposition of lengthy prison sentences in high profile cases for individuals convicted of such attacks.
When considering evidence in support of the existence of a gang and potential membership, the Court is often presented with evidence of county lines drug operations being overseen by senior gang members. These enterprises are highly profitable, 24/7 businesses that rely upon the exploitation of others. The individuals targeted for recruitment into these operations are almost always either children or vulnerable adults. This is because they are most susceptible to the exploitation techniques used by the organisers of the drugs line. Legal practitioners working in this area will have had experience advising children recruited because of their special educational needs, mental health issues, disabilities, absent / busy parents or guardians, homelessness or previous convictions; essentially children that the recruiters believe can be easily extracted from pre-existing support networks. The recruitment is often based on a glamourisation of the gang lifestyle, with current members presented in videos and photographs on social media in possession of large amounts of cash, designer clothes and jewellery. The prosecution frequently relies upon this material, not only against those appearing in the videos and photographs, but also against those who have been sent this material as part of the recruitment exercise, to establish either association with or membership of a particular gang.
Difficulties with identifying a ‘gang’
Legal practitioners instructed in these cases ought to be alert to the dangers of unconscious bias when considering whether there is sufficient evidence of both the existence of the gang and an individual’s membership of it. Gang affiliation and membership is frequently fluid and inconsistent. Large friendship groups of teenagers may include individuals involved in their own, personal criminal activity which is unrelated to others in the wider group. The use of a postcode by a group of individuals to identify themselves may be entirely innocent and designed to show an affinity or association with a particular area, much like supporting the local football team.
When speaking with boys and young men accused of gang membership the position is often complicated. Many individuals state that the names of the so called gangs have been given to them by those same police officers. They often say that the gang names and street tags relied upon extensively by the police and prosecution are not even used by the individuals identified in these applications. Therefore, legal practitioners should start by questioning how much of the labelled gang activity is due to the misapplication of naming and/or grouping together of boys and young men who happen to congregate in a particular public space. The question must always be whether there is credible evidence to support an assertion that a particular group is a ‘gang’ and that the identified individual is an established associate or member of it.
It is important to approach these questions of gang association and membership forensically and with care. The labelling of an individual or group of individuals, particularly young black men and boys, as ‘gang members’ inevitably leads to negative stereotyping. Experience teaches those of us working in this area that the indiscriminate use of the ‘gang’ label has the potential to have a profound impact on such young people; too often the evidence relied upon by the police and prosecution risks equating social and cultural associations with evidence of criminal activity. We see this in the approach taken to drill lyrics and videos. In addition to the risk of racial stereotyping, we have seen the impact of an overly broad approach taken to the definition of the ‘gang’ in so called ‘joint enterprise’ prosecutions, as the net of criminal liability is frequently extended far beyond that which can be established by other evidence.
For a demonstration of the dangers involved in a broad brush approach to the issue of gang membership, look no further than the Metropolitan Police gang matrix. It was introduced following the aftermath of the riots in London in 2011, an event that politicians largely blamed, without foundation, on gang activity. The aim of the gang matrix was to reduce gang-related violence by keeping a record of relevant London gang members. It was essentially a risk assessment tool principally used by the Metropolitan Police to rank London’s suspected gang members according to their propensity for violence. The individuals, or ‘gang nominals’ as they were described, were marked in a traffic light scoring system; red for those most likely to commit violent crimes. To encourage a multi-agency approach to tackling gangs, the data was shared with other organisations including local authorities, youth offending teams, probation service, health agencies, housing associations and educational establishments.
For those of us working in this area, the gang matrix proved not only ineffective but it clearly discriminated against young black men and boys. Unsurprisingly, given the lack of an agreed legal definition for a ‘gang’, the criteria for being listed on the gang matrix was vague and was applied inconsistently throughout the different boroughs of London. Those deciding on listing relied upon not only previous criminal history, but also social media content, friendship groups, associations and unverifiable intelligence from police officers, third party agencies and members of the local community. Many of the indicators used to identify gang members simply reflected elements of typical youth culture, such as an interest in drill music, and had nothing to do with an involvement in criminal activities. By conflating culture with criminal behaviour, the criteria resulted in a heavily racialised approach; young black men and boys were disproportionately listed on the gang matrix, resulting in the inevitable disenfranchisement and isolation of some of the most vulnerable young people in society. Furthermore, the sharing of the gang matrix data with other government agencies meant that the stigmatising effect of being identified as a ‘gang nominal’ followed those listed in their interactions with other service providers in health, housing, education and employment. Having been criticised as not only ineffective but counterproductive, the Metropolitan Police gang matrix was discontinued on 13 February 2024.
The flaws at the heart of the Metropolitan Police’s gang matrix provide a stark warning to legal practitioners working in this area; a cautious approach must be deployed when approaching the question of gangs and gang membership. In an encouraging development, the Court of Appeal recently warned against the generalised use of and reference to groups of individuals as a gang. In Oni and others [2025] EWCA Crim 12, Lord Justice Dingemans stated at paragraph 14:
“it is obviously important in any case to ensure that separate individuals are not unfairly treated as one entity, and that groups of friends or individuals sharing an interest in music are not unfairly labelled as gangs.”
Moving forward, legal practitioners instructed to represent individuals accused of gang membership ought to have this comment at the forefront of any submissions made in response to overly broad police and prosecution applications.