Clause 1 - Offences leading to penalities on the spot.
Criminal Justice and Police Bill
12:00 pm
Mr Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire, Conservative)
I agree with my hon. Friend. We had no problems under the previous system. It is a pity that we must have a firm end date.
The amendment would remove criminal damage from the list of offences for which a fixed penalty notice can be given. Clause 1(1) lists the offences for which such notices may be applied.
Amendment No. 22 would remove the offence of using
``Threatening, abusive or insulting words or disorderly behaviour''.
Amendment No. 24 would add offences concerning unlawful street trading.
On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) made it clear that, although we are not opposed in principle to the issuing of fixed penalty notices, we want to examine the details of the proposals.
The two offences that would be deleted from the list are potentially serious in terms of their effects both on victims and on the wider community's general sense of public order and safety. Should those who are accused of such serious offences be dealt with without arrest and charge and, potentially, conviction and sentence? Would attempts to deal with such offences on the street be likely to aggravate situations?
Criminal damage, in particular, is an offence that affects its victims. It can be a harassment offence—an act of criminal damage or vandalism that continues a campaign of harassment. It can be an offence in which the monetary value is small but the effect on the individual is substantial.
The same is true of
``Threatening, abusive or insulting words or disorderly behaviour''.
Such offences can arise in the context of a neighbour from hell, or can be committed as part of a series of public order problems on our high streets at the weekend. There are a range of circumstances in which the two offences can occur, but they are often serious offences, with serious consequences. We accept that there is to be an element of discretion here, but question whether such offences should be fixed penalty notice offences.
In response to the Government's consultation on fixed penalty notices, Bedfordshire police said:
``The type of offence to be included in this scheme should not be one where the circumstances are likely to increase existing confrontation''
and specifically mentioned ``abusive or insulting behaviour''.
The Association of Chief Officers of Probation has remarked:
``As threatening abusive or insulting words or behaviour may include some serious incidents and often have a direct victim, we would have doubts about their inclusion.''
Two serious bodies have therefore expressed doubts about whether such offences might be too serious to be included in a list of fixed penalty notice offences and dealt with in that way, and whether that is practical.
The Association of Chief Officers of Probation commented that it believes that the same applies to cases of criminal damage, which can be
``part of an incident that is serious and has a direct victim.''
It also says that, in such cases,
``reconciling the desirability of compensation for the damage with the simplicity of a fixed penalty might be difficult.''
We agree that criminal damage can cause great distress, even where there is little monetary value involved. The chief constable of the West Midlands police, Edward Crew, said that the Association of Chief Police Officers was broadly happy with the proposed list of fixed penalty offences except for criminal damage. He said:
``As you know, this offence is an `arrestable offence', is triable `either way', and can have an enormous impact on victims' lives even in the most minor instances. There was therefore considerable concern about whether it would be appropriate to deal with such offences by way of FPN.''
He added that there was a consensus that criminal damage should always result in the arrest of the alleged offender, and also pointed out:
``Criminal Damage is also notifiable for fingerprinting and DNA purposes and there is some fear that should such offences attract the issue of FPNs on the street, the vital opportunity to obtain fingerprints and DNA samples will be lost.''
Does the Minister agree that some offences are too serious to be dealt with by fixed penalty notice? There are certainly offences that could occur on the street that are not included in the list, and I suspect that that is because he would not want to diminish their seriousness. However, are the two offences under discussion not also too serious to be dealt with by fixed penalty notice?
Why has the Minister not followed the views of such important bodies as the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Association of Chief Officers of Probation and Bedfordshire police?