Crime and Policing Bill

Written evidence submitted by StopWatch (CPB10)

About StopWatch 

StopWatch is a coalition of legal experts, academics, citizens and civil liberties campaigners. We aim to address excess and disproportionate stop and search, promote best practice and ensure fair, effective policing for all.

Executive summary

· Provisions allowing respect orders based on the possibility of future anti-social behaviour (‘threatens to engage’) lower the standard of proof and undermine the presumption of innocence. Preventative deployment of respect orders disproportionately affects vulnerable groups, increasing the risk of discriminatory outcomes.

· Conditions imposed under respect orders may interfere with the respondent’s ability to associate with family and friends, violating Article 8 of the ECHR (Right to respect for private and family life).

· The current definition of anti-social behaviour includes conduct that ‘is likely to cause’ harm, which is overly broad and speculative.

· Breaches of respect orders expose individuals to criminal sanctions for non-criminal conduct, increasing the likelihood of failure due to excessive and unrealistic requirements.

· Extending the duration of exclusion orders from 48 to 72 hours risks disproportionate infringement of freedom of movement, contrary to Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights .

· There is inadequate transparency regarding the use of civil orders. The publication of data on civil orders must be mandatory, including demographic characteristics, purposes, and use of stop and search powers, under Section 95 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991.

· HMICFRS and the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) must be granted powers to adopt a responsive regulatory framework, including escalating sanctions for non-compliance. This should include the ability to suspend powers (e.g., stop and search) from underperforming police forces until appropriate safeguards are in place.

· Introducing new civil orders without demonstrating their necessity or effectiveness risks exacerbating existing disparities. There must be a requirement for evidence from His Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS) and the College of Policing to demonstrate that existing powers are used lawfully, fairly, and effectively before introducing new orders.

· Civil orders often lack sufficient governance, increasing the risk of misuse and racial disproportionality. There must be an introduction of stricter statutory guidance, standardised criteria for imposing civil orders, and mandatory equality impact assessments. The i ntroduction of real-time supervision and decision-breaks is necessary to mitigate racial profiling. C ivil orders must also be subject to post-legislative scrutiny with input from affected stakeholders.

· Persistent racial disproportionality in the application of civil orders undermine police legitimacy. Racial disproportionality must be a standalone criterion for PEEL legitimacy inspections by HMICFRS and empower the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) to take legal compliance action against forces that demonstrate persistent disproportionality.

Written evidence

· Respect Orders

1. RECOMMENDATION: Provision A1 (1) (a) should be revised so that the required standard of proof needed to impose a respect order be solely based on the balance of probabilities ‘that the respondent has engaged in’ rather than the possibility that the individual may engage in anti-social behaviour, as is implied by the wording ‘threatens to engage in anti-social behaviour’.

2. RECOMMENDATION: Provisions should be revised to remove references to the preventative deployment of respect orders.

3. The existing wording undermines the principle of innocence until proven guilty and risks imposing punitive measures on individuals who have not committed any wrongdoing. By lowering the threshold to hypothetical future conduct, the burden of proof is diminished, shifting away from proving past wrongdoing and towards an assessment of perceived risk, which is inherently speculative and prone to error. Vague and predictive standards disproportionately affect marginalised and vulnerable groups, who are more likely to be viewed with suspicion and subjected to intrusive policing measures. The use of Respect Orders based on perceived threats rather than proven actions can exacerbate existing inequalities, increasing the likelihood of discriminatory outcomes.

4. RECOMMENDATION: Provision A1 (3) (a) should be revised so that requirements in a respect order do not interfere with the respondent’s ability to frequent friends and family members as well as their attendance of work and educational establishments. Suggested wording: ‘The requirements imposed under a Respect Order shall be proportionate and must not restrict the respondent’s ability to maintain familial and social relationships, nor shall they interfere with their ability to attend work, vocational training, or educational establishments.’

5. Provision (3) (a) grants the authority to impose conditions that may restrict where an individual may go and with whom they may associate. However, without clear safeguards, these restrictions risk disproportionately interfering with the respondent’s ability to frequent family and friends. Restrictions that limit an individual’s ability to associate with family and friends infringe upon fundamental rights protected under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) Right to respect for private and family life.

6. RECOMMENDATION: Provision A1 (9) should be revised so that the provision is limited to anti-social behaviour which ‘has caused’ rather than ‘is likely to cause’ ‘harassment, alarm or distress to any person’.

7. RECOMMENDATION: Removal of provision H1 (3) (a) and (b) on ‘conviction’ and ‘imprisonment’ as the consequences for breach of a Respect Order.

8. Extensive evidence highlights that conditions attached to civil orders are frequently impossible to comply with for reasons beyond the recipient’s control [1] . This creates a situation where individuals subject to these orders are effectively set up to fail, making breach almost inevitable and exposing them to criminal sanctions for conduct that, in itself, would not constitute a criminal offence. This bypasses the procedural and evidential safeguards that apply in the criminal justice system by 'bringing the criminal law into play' [2] in situations where obtaining a criminal conviction would be impossible or extremely difficult due to the fact that the underlying behaviour is not inherently criminal.

· Other provision about anti-social behaviour

9. RECOMMENDATION: Removal of provisions (2) (a), (2) (c), (3) (b), and (4) extending the duration of orders from 48 hours to 72 hours.

10. A 72-hour period of exclusion from an area is excessive for breaches of civil orders, which typically involve conduct that falls short of criminal behaviour and are often imposed for low-level anti-social behaviour. Maintaining the 48-hour limit ensures that exclusion is used as a last resort and remains proportionate to the nature of the alleged breach. This amendment is necessary to uphold the individual’s right to freedom of movement granted by Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

11. RECOMMENDATION: Revision of provision 105A to introduce a requirement that data on the use of anti-social behaviour order should be published under section 95 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991. The data collected should include the number of civil orders issued, the purposes for which they were issued, whether stop and search powers were utilised, and the protected characteristics of the person subjected to the civil order.

· New provisions [3]

12. No new civil orders should be introduced unless His Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services and the College of Policing demonstrate that existing powers are being used lawfully, fairly and effectively. An evidence-based case needs to show how recently proposed civil orders will be effective in tackling related offences. An equality impact assessment is required to establish what effect the proposed powers would have on existing ethnic disparities, community relations and police legitimacy. It also needs to be demonstrated that these powers are necessary and do not replicate existing provisions [4] . This evidence should then be examined in a parliamentary review.

13. The College of Policing and His Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Service must provide stricter governance over and statutory guidance on how civil orders are operationalised. The factors for courts and enforcement bodies (including local authorities) to consider when determining whether to impose a civil order should be standardised and codified, including the recipient's risk to the public, the civil order's effectiveness, practical and enforceable conditions, interaction with any related convictions, case-specific tailoring, and balancing the rights of the recipient with public protection [5] .

14. The government must at a minimum introduce primary legislation to ensure that stop and search powers deployed on the legal basis of civil orders and beyond are used fairly, effectively and proportionately. Given the persistent nature of ethnic disparities and the failure to deliver sustained improvements in this area, an element of compulsion is required. Forces that fail to meet acceptable standards should face sanctions. The Home Office should be able to suspend poorly performing forces from using stop and search powers until appropriate safeguards have been put in place, which should be subject to further review [6] . 

15. Local authorities and the College of Policing respectively should pilot and evaluate the use of decision-breaks and real-time supervision as a way of tackling racial profiling in the application of civil orders. Local authorities and officers imposing a civil order should be required to check their grounds and secure authorisation from a senior member of staff or supervising officer before proceeding with the civil order in circumstances that are prone to disproportionality [7] .

16. Civil orders should be subjected to post-legislative scrutiny by parliament, with input from stakeholders, including individuals who have been a recipient of a civil order, victims of civil order-related crimes, and enforcement bodies. The proportion of arrests within each ethnic group that are made as a result of civil orders should be a key indicator and the presumption should be one of parity unless there are demonstrable, evidence-based reasons why this is not appropriate [8] . Local scrutiny groups responsible for reviewing the use of civil orders should operate independently of forces and under the jurisdiction of the relevant Police and Crime Commissioner’s office. The findings should then be submitted to the relevant House of Commons Departmental Select Committee to ascertain whether a more comprehensive post-legislative inquiry is necessary to ensure that the civil orders are effective, proportionate and compliant with human rights legislation [9] .

17. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services should consider ethnic disproportionality as a specific, stand alone, assessment criteria for the PEEL legitimacy inspections. Forces should be rated on their record of taking action to reduce ethnic disparities as well as their attempts to understand the nature of the problem [10] .

18. The Equalities and Human Rights Commission should revisit the question of whether to take legal compliance action against authorities and forces that are persistently and/or highly disproportionate in their use of civil orders [11] . 

· Accountability and enforcement [12]

19. Racial disproportionality in policing cannot be tackled while police inspectorate statutory bodies do not have the power to enforce their recommendations. HMICFRS and the IOPC should be granted the power to adopt a responsive regulation approach to hold police forces accountable for noncompliance. This should include an escalating set of responses to forces which repeatedly fail to abide by the above standards and policing protocol, with suspension of powers (e.g. stop and search) as the ultimate sanction.

20. Effective and rigorous enforcement is essential to maintaining high standards in policing. Without real authority, professional and institutional oversight become ineffective, lacking the power to drive meaningful change.

21. His Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS) is responsible for inspecting and assessing the efficiency and effectiveness of police forces across England and Wales, as mandated by the Police Act 1996. One of its key mechanisms for intervention is the 'Engage' process, which provides additional scrutiny and support to underperforming forces. When a force enters this phase, it must develop an improvement plan and may receive assistance from bodies such as the College of Policing or the National Police Chiefs' Council. This framework is designed to address significant concerns and facilitate necessary improvements.

22. However, HMICFRS lacks the robust enforcement powers seen in other regulated sectors. Comparisons with institutions overseeing healthcare, financial services, and education provide a valuable illustration of this disparity:

23. Under the Health and Social Care Act 2008, the Care Quality Commission ("CQC") can place failing healthcare providers under special measures, requiring improvement within a fixed timeframe. Providers face regular inspections, and the CQC has enforcement powers to suspend or revoke licences, potentially leading to facility closures and leadership changes.

24. The Financial Conduct Authority ("FCA"), under Section 166 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, conducts skilled person reviews to assess concerns within regulated firms, such as governance, financial controls, and misconduct. These reviews inform regulatory decisions, and enforcement actions can include fines, operational prohibitions, senior management disqualification, and even criminal prosecution for serious misconduct.

25. Under the Education Act 2005, the Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills ("Ofsted") can place failing schools under special measures when rated 'inadequate.' Schools must implement improvement plans and undergo frequent monitoring. If progress is insufficient, governing bodies can be replaced, and schools may be forced to convert into academies or be taken over by another trust.

26. As a whole, the CQC, FCA, and Ofsted all possess relatively strong enforcement mechanisms, including the power to revoke licences, remove leadership, and initiate direct regulatory intervention. In contrast, HMICFRS can secure information but lacks the authority to mandate change. Unlike the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC), it can only make recommendations, with ultimate decisions resting with ministers or police authorities.

27. However, inspection powers do not have to remain purely advisory. A structured framework for coordination between HMICFRS, the IOPC, and Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) could enhance enforcement and accountability for serious or systemic failings within police forces. Such a framework would require:

· A formalised schedule for HMICFRS, PCCs, and the Home Office to review progress and tackle compliance barriers.

· Improved information-sharing across regulatory bodies.

· Mandatory referral of non-compliance or failures to improve to the Home Secretary and/or the IOPC, so as to facilitate more robust regulatory action.

· By strengthening oversight mechanisms and aligning HMICFRS with the enforcement powers seen in other regulatory sectors, policing standards can be upheld more effectively, ensuring greater accountability and public trust.

27 March 2025