Mr.
Coaker: The last two or three contributions have helped to
clarify the matter. Essentially, it is about injunctions being used to
tackle antisocial behaviour, rather then violent behaviour, and the
need for Parliament to make it clear that the courts can impose
injunctions to tackle gang-related violent behaviour, which is why we
introduced the
provision.
Nadine
Dorries (Mid-Bedfordshire) (Con): Sometimes it is
difficult to understand the situations within which the measure would
be warranted that the police have to deal with. On Monday in Liverpool,
a gang of boys circled the car of a district nurse who was trying to
get into somebody’s house to do a dressing. They all had knives
and made it clear that they were not going to allow her to leave her
car, which they smashed and scratched when she called the police on her
mobile phone. As the hon. Member for Northampton, North said, that
shows a pattern of gang-type behaviour that, next time, could be far
worse. It is difficult for us to say what kind of evidence would
demonstrate when those patterns of gang-related behaviour, which start
at 12 and 13 years old, develop into something more serious.
A measure such as this would stop that in its tracks early
on.
Mr.
Coaker: That is helpful. We are giving the courts the
power to impose injunctions where there is gang-related violence. I
shall come back to under-18s, but I want to move on to general points
and put something specific on the record.
I have said to
the hon. Member for Hornchurch, but would like to reiterate for the
hon. Member for Chesterfield, that there is an issue with the
definition of gangs, and I will reflect on that to see whether we can
properly incorporate one into the Bill, if possible. There are
different definitions. Manchester defines gangs
as “A
group of three or more people who have a distinct identity...and
commit general criminal and anti-social behaviour as part of that
identity. This group uses (or is reasonably suspected of using)
firearms, or the threat of firearms”.
The London
definition is:
“Street
gangs are relatively durable, street-based groups who see themselves
and are seen by others as a group for crime and violence which are
essential to group practice and
solidarity.” I
was not trying to make a political point but, again, the right hon.
Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith)
listed the four conditions that the hon. Member for Hornchurch has put
forward, but said that they all had to be satisfied for that behaviour
to be gang-related, but the hon. Gentleman’s amendment requires
any of those conditions to be met. Clearly, we have to have more in the
Bill about the definition of a gang, but it is not easy. We do not want
it to mean, as, I think, Liberty said, “just a group of
hoodies”—of course not. Violent behaviour and the other
things that we have talked about have to be involved. I will reflect
upon it. I hope that that has answered the general point about
definitions. As
I have said to the hon. Gentleman, although I will not accept his
amendment, I will look at this because I know he is trying to see how
we can deal with that, what sort of definition we come up with and what
we need to put in the Bill. Similarly, I accept that there is need for
broader consultation. I need to see whether there are other people we
should consult too, such as employers.
New clause 24
talks about the code of practice. There is a need to toughen it up. My
hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North made an important point
about the code of practice. We will need to publish a draft and put it
before Parliament so it can be discussed. The code of practice will be
essential for the operation of these powers. Rather than just being
published by the Secretary of State, it needs greater parliamentary
scrutiny. On
the under-18s point, I am sorry if I am not making myself very clear. I
am not trying to confuse anybody. I am laying out what the situation
is. The injunctions can be used for under-18s, but it is unlikely that
they would be used in practice because they are not enforceable. I take
the point that some people would have an income. The vast majority of
people whom these injunctions are designed to catch may have a source
of income, but it is not likely to be legitimate. A court would have to
take that into account. The breach would be a contempt of court because
it is a civil offence. It is not possible to send anyone who is under
18 to prison or a youth offender institution for a civil contempt of
court, so there is no enforceability of the injunction.
What I have
said—and nobody, including the hon. Member for Chesterfield,
disagreed—is that the public will point to the 13, 14 or
15-year-olds who are out there. The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire
described how her constituent was surrounded by kids with knives. I do
not know whether they were 13, 14 or 15. People will point out that the
injunctions are about trying to tackle serious gun-related violence but
do not or are unlikely to apply to under-18s. They will ask what on
earth we are doing when many people of 14, 15 or 16 are
likely to be those to whom such an injunction would apply.
There is a
public policy gap. I have asked my officials to work with other
officials across Government to see whether there is something
proportionate that takes into account all of the legitimate concerns
everybody will have and to try to find a way forward. I have also said
that I will talk to and involve other Members on
this because it is so important. I know the difficulty of trying to get
it through. Without some sort of consensus it will not go through
Parliament. That will leave us with the situation where the public will
ask why we are not dealing with some of the most serious violent
individuals in our communities. That is all that I have said. I do not
know what the answer will be, but it would be remiss and an abrogation
of my responsibility to say that I will not even try to look at it when
I know it is a
problem. I
know that this will create problems. I know that all sorts of issues
will arise from it. But that is the price that has to be paid for
trying to do the right thing. That is what I will do. Whether it is
possible, I do not know. But that is what I will do. In the end, if we
can deliver something for under-18s, it will save lives and it will
prevent harm in communities.
I was asked
whether these injunctions would stand alone or be alongside criminal
convictions. These are stand-alone injunctions. They cannot be imposed
upon conviction. Our preference is always to engage the criminal
justice system where there is sufficient evidence of a criminal
offence. That is why these injunctions are not punitive. They are
imposed as a sanction for bad behaviour. They are imposed as a
preventive measure to prevent gang-related violence. As I have said,
the injunctions will not be imposed to punish someone for what they
have done, but to prevent future gang-related violence. That is why the
two stages of the injunction test are distinct. Past behaviour must be
proved, but that is not enough for a court to grant the injunction. If
the court is not satisfied that an injunction is necessary to prevent
gang-related violence, an injunction will not be granted,
notwithstanding any past behaviour. For that reason, we can confidently
say that the injunctions are preventive
measures. The
hon. Member for Chesterfield mentioned the House of Lords’
decision in McCann, in which it said that an enhanced civil standard of
proof akin to the criminal standard should apply when granting an ASBO.
He will also know of when, in the case of re. B—a
child—that House considered the question of the sliding scale of
the standard of proof. The ruling was clear that there is only one
civil standard of proof—the balance of probabilities. That is
the standard for the injunctions, as new clause 11 makes clear. These
injunctions are civil tools made in the civil courts, and breach of
them is contempt of
court.
James
Brokenshire: If I understand correctly, the Minister seeks
to distinguish the orders from the McCann judgment, which I think was
my point to him when asking if that was his intention. If he reflects
on the Shafi and Ellis decision, he will note that the court suggested
that the McCann standard would be applicable in those sorts of
injunctions. I wish, therefore, to understand what he is saying about
these orders. Does he see the standard here as purely the balance of
probabilities, and not the sliding scale that could equate to the
criminal standard as was suggested in McCann in relation to ASBOs, and
which seemed to be extended to section 222 injunctions in
the context of the judgment that gave rise to this
proposal?
Mr.
Coaker: Yes, we do see the standard here as consistent
with the civil standard of the balance of probabilities and as distinct
from the McCann judgment.
A breach of an ASBO is a criminal offence. There are all sorts of
problems with ASBOs, for example they are initially imposed for two
years with no variation or discharge possible. The balance of
probabilities is the appropriate standard of proof
here. On
the duration of conditions, it is right to say that the requirements
and prohibitions that can be attached to an injunction can last until
further order of the court, rather than until a specified date, but it
is unlikely that the courts will grant an order with indefinite
conditions without setting a review hearing. The guidance will also
encourage the setting of review hearings for longer or indefinite
injunctions. Also, the respondent can apply to vary or discharge any
part or all of the
injunction. Injunctions
are not a criminal sanction; they are a civil tool to prevent
gang-related violence. We do not wish to criminalise respondents for
breach of an injunction and that is why there is no such criminal
offence. That is a clear difference from
ASBOs. An
injunction can be imposed if that is necessary to protect the
respondent from gang-related violence. Victims quickly become
perpetrators and vice versa, particularly in retaliation attacks. In
most cases, gang violence occurs between rival gang members. A person
subject to an injunction would be a known gang member who had
committed, encouraged or assisted gang violence. This provision focuses
on the fact that in some cases a gang member is known to be putting
themselves at risk of a reprisal attack. The hon. Member for Hornchurch
made that point. That is why we have the reference to the protection of
the individual; we are almost trying to protect them from themselves. I
will give an actual example. A young man was known to be the target of
a gang attack. He was warned of that, but insisted on continuing to
enter the area in which he was going to be attacked. In such a
scenario, we would want to prevent the gang-related violence, not just
because of the individual respondent who is at risk both of committing
violence and being the victim of violence in the event of a
confrontation, but because of the risk to innocent bystanders who all
too often are unwittingly caught up in fatal attacks by being in the
wrong place at the wrong time. We therefore feel it necessary to have
that option. The injunction is likely to be needed to prevent the
respondent from engaging, assisting or facilitating gang-related
violence, and from being a victim of such violence. The two go hand in
hand. 1.45
pm
James
Brokenshire: I do not know whether the Minister would care
to comment, but some police officers to whom I have spoken have
indicated that, in reprisal situations, the alternate gang will
sometimes seek to attack almost indiscriminately in the area around
which a particular gang member may reside or is seen. Am I therefore
correct in understanding that, in essence, the injunction will not only
protect the individual subject to it from harm, but will also equally
protect those around them who may innocently fall victim to an
appalling crime simply by being in the wrong place at the wrong
time?
Mr.
Coaker: That is a reasonable point. The point of the
injunction is to protect the individual from themselves, as it were,
but, as a by-product of that, it may well end
up protecting innocent people in a community who find themselves caught
up in a gang-related attack. As the hon. Gentleman said, when people
seek retaliation or revenge in an area, innocent people might be
affected, so the injunction, while protecting the individual, may have
the benefit of protecting innocent people in the community, or on a
street, as a
consequence. I
should also, by way of conclusion, refer to new clause 9, which relates
to the end of the Bill. I would like to put it on record that it is the
Government’s intention basically to accept new clause 9, but we
would like it to be withdrawn, because we need to redraft it
appropriately. It is our intention to reinstate it on Report, which
will be of interest to the hon. Members for Hornchurch and for Bury St.
Edmunds, as well as the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul
Beresford) who is actually responsible for much of
it. We
have had a good debate, and I have no further comments. If the
provisions are successful in relation to over-18s, and we can find a
way forward in relation to under-18s, we will significantly enhance
safety on our streets. Furthermore, we will protect people who would
otherwise be killed, prevent others from the effects of serious
gang-related violence and prevent some individuals from ending up in
prison on long-term sentences. I thank the Committee for today’s
debate. Amendment
290 agreed to.
Clause 89,
as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause
90 ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clause
91 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
New Clause
11Injunctions
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.’.—(Mr.
Campbell.) Brought
up, read the First and Second time, and added to the
Bill.
New
Clause
12Contents
of injunctions ‘(1) This
section applies in relation to an injunction under section [Injunctions
to prevent gang-related violence].
(2) The prohibitions included in the injunction may,
in particular, have the effect of prohibiting the respondent
from— (a) being in a
particular place; (b) being
with particular persons in a particular
place; (c) being in charge of a
particular species of animal in a particular
place; (d) wearing particular
descriptions of articles of clothing in a particular
place; (e) using the internet
to facilitate or encourage
violence. (3) The requirements
included in the injunction may, in particular, have the effect of
requiring the respondent
to— (a)
notify the person who applied for the injunction of
the respondent’s address and of any change to that
address; (b) be at a particular
place between particular times on particular
days; (c) present himself or
herself to a particular person at a place where he or she is required
to be between particular times on particular
days; (d) participate in
particular activities between particular times on particular
days. (4) A requirement of the
kind mentioned in subsection (3)(b) may not be such as to require the
respondent to be at a particular place for more than 8 hours in any
day. (5) The prohibitions and
requirements included in the injunction must, so far as practicable, be
such as to avoid— (a)
any conflict with the respondent’s religious beliefs,
and (b) any
interference with the times, if any, at which the respondent normally
works or attends any educational
establishment. (6) Nothing in
subsection (2) or (3) affects the generality of section [Injunctions to
prevent gang-related
violence](4). (7) In subsection
(2) “place” includes an
area.’.—(Mr.
Campbell.) Brought
up, read the First and Second time, and added to the
Bill.
| 
