 House of Commons |
Session 2008 - 09 Publications on the internet Public Bill Committee Debates Policing and Crime Bill |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Chris
Shaw, Andrew Kennon, Committee
Clerks † attended the
Committee Public Bill CommitteeThursday 26 February 2009(Afternoon)[Hugh Bayley in the Chair]Policing and Crime BillClause 89Extent Amendment
proposed (this day): 290, in
clause 89, page 103, line 2, at
end insert— ‘(ba)
sections [Injunctions to prevent gang-related
violence] to [Interpretation] and Schedule [Injunctions: powers to
remand],’.—(Mr.
Coaker.) 1
pm Question
again proposed, That the amendment be
made.
The
Chairman: I remind the Committee that with this we are
discussing the following: Government new clause
11—Injunctions to prevent gang-related
violence— ‘(1) A court
may grant an injunction under this section if two conditions are
met. (2) The first condition is
that the court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the
respondent has engaged in, or has encouraged or assisted, gang-related
violence. (3) The second
condition is that the court thinks it is necessary to grant the
injunction for either or both of the following
purposes— (a) to prevent
the respondent from engaging in, or encouraging or assisting,
gang-related violence; (b) to
protect the respondent from gang-related
violence. (4) An injunction
under this section may (for either or both of those
purposes)— (a) prohibit
the respondent from doing anything described in the
injunction; (b) require the
respondent to do anything described in the
injunction. (5) In this section
“gang-related violence” means violence or a threat of
violence which occurs in the course of the activities of a gang or is
otherwise related to such
activities.’. Amendment
(a) to new clause 11, at end
insert— ‘(6) In this section
“gang” shall mean a group of people who see themselves or
are seen by others as a discernable group and exhibit any one or more
of the following
factors— (a) engaging in
criminal activity; (b)
identifying with a particular geographical
area; (c) having some form of
identifying organisational
feature; (d) being in conflict
with other similar
gangs.’. Government
new clause 12—Contents of
injunctions. Government
new clause 13—Contents of injunctions:
supplemental. Government
new clause 14—Applications for injunctions under section
[Injunctions to prevent gang-related
violence]. Government
new clause 15—Consultation by applicants for
injunctions— ‘(1) Before
applying for an injunction under section [Applications for injunctions
under section [Injunctions to prevent gang-related violence]], the
applicant must comply with the consultation
requirement.
(2) In the case of an application by a chief officer
of police, the consultation requirement is that the chief officer
(“the applicant chief officer”) must
consult— (a)
any local authority that the applicant chief officer considers it would
be appropriate to consult,
and (b) any other chief officer
of police whom the applicant chief officer considers it would be
appropriate to consult. (3) In
the case of an application by the chief constable of the British
Transport Police Force, the consultation requirement is that the
constable must
consult— (a) any local
authority that the constable considers it would be appropriate to
consult, and (b) any chief
officer of police whom the constable considers it would be appropriate
to consult. (4) In the case of
an application by a local authority, the consultation requirement is
that the local authority (“the applicant local
authority”) must
consult— (a) any chief
officer of police whom the applicant local authority considers it would
be appropriate to consult,
and (b) any
other local authority that the applicant local authority considers it
would be appropriate to
consult.’. Amendment
(a) to new clause 15, after subsection (2)(b)
insert— ‘(c) any primary
care trust, mental health trust or other NHS authority that the
applicant chief officer considers would be appropriate to consult;
and (d) any youth offending
team, local probation service or office of the National Offender
Management Service that the applicant chief officer considers would be
appropriate to
consult.’. Amendment
(b) to new clause 15, after subsection (3)(b)
insert— ‘(c) any primary
care trust, mental health trust or other NHS authority that the
constable considers would be appropriate to consult;
and (d) any youth offending
team, local probation service or office of the National Offender
Management Service that the constable considers would be appropriate to
consult.’. Amendment
(c) to new clause 15, after subsection (4)(b)
insert— ‘(c) any primary
care trust, mental health trust or other NHS authority that the
applicant local authority considers would be appropriate to consult;
and (d) any youth offending
team, local probation service or office of the National Offender
Management Service that the applicant local authority considers would
be appropriate to
consult.’. Government
new clause 16—Applications without
notice. Government
new clause 17—Interim injunctions: adjournment of on notice
hearing. Government
new clause 18—Interim injunctions: adjournment of without
notice
hearing. Government
new clause 19—Variation or discharge of
injunctions. Government
new clause 20—Arrest without
warrant. Government
new clause 21—Issue of warrant of
arrest. Government
new clause 22—Remand for medical examination and
report. Government
new clause 23—Further provision about
remands. Government
new clause
24—Guidance. Government
new clause
25—Supplemental. Government
new clause
26—Interpretation. New
schedule 2—Injunctions: Powers to
Remand.
Paul
Holmes (Chesterfield) (LD): To recap, the Minister had
clarified the intention of the new clauses. One clarification, which
dealt with a number of the issues that organisations such as Justice
and Liberty have raised about youth courts and so on, was that the new
clauses will not, by and large, or at all, apply to under-18s. However,
the Minister also put great emphasis on the fact that one of the
reasons for introducing the new clauses on gangs was the involvement of
14, 15 and 16-year-olds in stabbings. That is a dichotomy that will
require further exploration when he sums
up. It
is also an issue that, if the new clauses do not apply, by and large,
to under-18s because they would not be able to afford the fine imposed
for a breach of the injunction, some 16 to 18-year-olds do of course
work and earn money, and so could pay the fine. Will the clauses
therefore apply to a few under-18s who do work and are able to afford
the fine, or will they not apply to any under-18s? Either way, there is
much confusion, so surely the Bill should address an age limit, if
there is to be one. I hope that the Minister will discuss that in his
closing
comments. We
also discussed the fact that the new clauses do not offer a definition
of a gang. In his opening comments, the Minister went to great lengths
to say that the provisions will not apply to a group of hoodies on a
street corner or to football fans wearing scarves. Can we be content
with such a simple explanation? We all know of examples of legislation
being passed for one purpose, but allowing mission creep to take place,
because the police will use whatever powers they have in certain
situations. Terrorism legislation was used to arrest a heckler at a
Labour party conference, for example, as well as to stop legitimate
peaceful protesters at arms fairs in London.
Furthermore,
on 15 November 2008, section 27 of the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006
was used against 80 Stoke City fans, so the Minister’s claim
that the new clauses do not apply to football supporters is relevant
here. The fans stopped at a pub on their way to a match. They were
being perfectly peaceful and the publican made no complaint about their
behaviour. The police, however, used the 2006 Act to round them up and
detain them for a while, before sending them 40 miles back to Stoke on
a coach. They missed the match, had no toilet facilities and were told
to pee into cups, which spilled all over the floor of the coach. The
treatment of those fans was unacceptable; they had not committed a
violent offence and the publican had not complained about them, and it
would appear that the legislation was grossly
misused. There
are other examples that could be highlighted illustrating the same
point regarding legislation being misused for one purpose when it was
clearly intended for another. As there is no definition of a gang in
the new clauses, does that not leave open the possibility that the
legislation might be misused for purposes for which the Minister says
that it is not intended? It could be used against football fans, for
example, or gangs of hoodies on street corners and so on, even though I
accept the Minister’s explanation that the intent of the new
clauses is, essentially, to target hard-core gangs involved in major
violence and serious organised activity. There has been much reference
to the dangers of such gangs, but it should be put on record—as
it has been
already—that the issue does not apply to most of the country.
However, it is a major problem in the areas to which it does
apply.
In my 22 years
of teaching, I never came across a gang culture impinging on school
life. I have some experience of schools in Sheffield—not much,
even though I went to school there—and did some teaching
practice near Barnsley, but most of my teaching was in Derbyshire. Yet
I recently visited a school in an area of London with a strong gang
culture. That culture sometimes impinges on school life there, although
by and large the school is a haven of safety within the community.
There was just one incident there recently. Last summer, a gang member
inflicted serious harm on another pupil who was a member of a rival
gang with a metal bar—the kind that has dumb-bell weights at the
ends—and was jailed. Nobody disputes that in some of our inner
cities there are serious gang issues such as those that the Minister
has described, but that is not the experience of the vast majority of
the population in the
UK. The
Minster has not explained clearly enough why the Government feel that
the existing laws are inadequate, but I hope that he will. Those were
precisely the grounds on which the Court of Appeal rejected the
Birmingham case. It said that the available evidence was too flimsy to
lead to the injunction that had been issued. The ruling stated that the
legislation on antisocial behaviour orders was perfectly adequate to
deal with the matter. Clearly, the Government do not agree with that,
because they are introducing these strong clauses on a new offence that
could be used in such situations. However, the Court of Appeal said
that there was plenty of legislation that could have been used and that
the evidence was too flimsy. Are the Government introducing the new
clauses because they want a lower burden of proof? For an ASBO, the
criminal burden of proof—that it is beyond reasonable doubt that
a person has acted antisocially—is needed. In the Shafi and
Ellis case, the Court of Appeal made it clear that, given the
seriousness of the matter, the same standard of evidence—the
criminal burden of proof involving the matter being beyond reasonable
doubt—should be applied. The new clauses would create a new
civil order with a lower applicable standard of proof: proof on the
balance of probabilities. Is the real reason behind the clauses to
allow a lower burden of proof and make it easier to get an injunction,
or, under existing law, an ASBO? The Court of Appeal thought that the
ASBO was perfectly adequate in that
situation. The
proposals affect the liberty of the person. They affect the right of
association and expression and freedom of movement, and they introduce
a concept of criminality without trial and with a lower burden of
proof. That is contrary to the tenor of English law over the eight
centuries since Magna Carta. If the Government take that serious step
they will have a lot more explaining to do to convince both the House
and the other
place. As
well as introducing a lower standard of proof for the new offence, the
proposals also move what is basically an ASBO principle on from
prohibiting someone from doing something to requiring that they do
things as well. In that sense it is almost a control order, and we all
know the controversy that surrounds those. The Government have said
repeatedly that control orders were temporary measures, but they have
renewed them two or three times. Those measures are very controversial
and we will look at them again soon in the main
Chamber. It seems as though we are almost turning an ASBO into a control
order with the new clauses, and that raises serious concerns that we
will need to discuss at much greater length in both
Chambers. I
would like the Minister, in summing up, to answer three questions. Why
are the current measures not adequate, even though the Court of Appeal
specifically stated that they were, which is why it rejected the
situation in Birmingham? The Minister discussed the problems with
having a definition of a gang and said that he would look again at the
proposals for one, but without a definition how do we stop major
mission creep or the abuse of powers that we see with other legislation
relating to violent disorder and the prevention of terrorism? Why
should we introduce a low burden of proof when an injunction would have
such a major impact on a person’s basic civil
liberties?
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2009 | Prepared 27 February 2009 |