Because crime prevention implications accompany virtually every decision made by local authorities -- whether it be related to housing standards, facilities of public housing, street lighting, or aspects of community planning -- local authorities may be held legally accountable by citizens for any adverse impact on crime of local government decisions. Local authorities may thus be challenged by judicial review for many of their decisions. Judicial review involves a court review of the decisions of local authorities to ensure that the Acts of Parliament have been correctly interpreted, that discretion conferred by statute has been lawfully exercised, and that the decision maker has acted fairly. It may be possible for a local authority to argue that Section 17 is not intended to impose an onerous duty upon local authorities, but without judicial precedent it is currently impossible to determine whether this is so. Currently, local authorities should take three precautionary steps: First, determine which practices are likely to be criminogenic; second, immediately implement efforts to counter those practices identified as criminogenic; and third, make policy decisions, after legal advice, concerning the trade-off between Section 17 obligations and extra expenditure. 16 notes