Clause 20 - Injunctions in local authority proceedings: power of arrest and remand
Police and Justice Bill
3:00 pm
Martin Horwood (Shadow Minister (Environment), Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Cheltenham, Liberal Democrat)
I beg to move amendment No. 126, in clause 20, page 21, line 25, at end insert ‘on bail’.
Greg Pope (Hyndburn, Labour)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 127, in clause 20, page 21, leave out lines 34 and 35.
No. 128, in clause 20, page 21, line 36, leave out ‘in any other case’.
No. 129, in schedule 7, page 84, leave out lines 37 to 39.
No. 130, in schedule 7, page 84, line 40, leave out ‘him’ and insert ‘the person’.
No. 131, in schedule 7, page 85, line 21, leave out
No. 132, in schedule 7, page 85, leave out lines 26 to 28.
Martin Horwood (Shadow Minister (Environment), Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Cheltenham, Liberal Democrat)
The amendments address what we see as the possible blurring of the line between civil and criminal law, and the risk of increasing the use of custody when it may not be appropriate. The amendments would remove the court’s power to remand a person in custody if they were arrested for breach of an anti-social behaviour injunction. The amendments would not restrict the court’s power to remand a person on bail where they had breached such an ASBI.
The explanatory notes state that
“the court may attach a power of arrest to the injunction in certain cases, namely where the conduct in question consists of or includes the use of violence, or there is a significant risk of harm. That means that a person who is suspected of breaching the conditions in the injunction can be arrested.”
I am a little surprised by that, because surely if violence is involved, the conduct ought to be classified as a criminal offence. I should be grateful if the Minister could expand on that.
The Howard League for Penal Reform has pointed out the risks of the clause sucking larger numbers of people into custody who otherwise would not be there. Their comment say that:
“More than 6,000 ASBOs have been issued and over 40 per cent. are breached.”
They continue:
“To give the courts the power to remand in custody pending a court appearance would inevitably lead to a significant number of people spending months in crowded local prisons to await trial, a few of whom would receive a short custodial sentence, but many would be given a community sanction. There appears to be no estimate of the cost for the increased use of custodial remands.”
So the risks in the clause are pretty clear. There may be an appeal to the Labour party at this moment in the political cycle, but there are obvious cost implications to legislation that may draw more people into custody willy-nilly. As the Howard League pointed out, there are the risks of overcrowding in local prisons, and of an over-harsh remedy for people who would otherwise not be taken into custody at any stage. That seems to undermine the whole value of such alternative means of implementing criminal justice and tackling anti-social behaviour, such as anti-social behaviour orders, parenting contracts and the like.
Hazel Blears (Minister of State (Policing, Security and Community Safety), Home Office; Salford, Labour)
I did not think that in opposing the hon. Gentleman’s amendments I should find myself quite such a defender of the legal system, but clearly I shall be, yet again.
The amendments would tie the hands of judges, so that they would not be able to use their discretion based on the facts of individual cases to decide whether a suspect should be remanded in custody or released on bail. It is entirely proper that the judge should be able to look at the circumstances in which an injunction is sought. There may be insulting and abusive behaviour that causes distress, or violence may indeed be involved—sometimes disputes can have that element. It is right that the judge, having heard the facts, should have discretion as to whether somebody should be released on bail or remanded in custody.
Some of the circumstances in which injunctive remedies need to be sought can be extremely challenging, to say the least. Therefore, I do not think that it is right to have a rigid position that someone has to be released on bail in every single case. That person could then go out and repeat exactly the behaviour for which they were brought before the court on injunction in the first place. On that basis, I ask the hon. Gentleman not to press his amendment. The courts are perfectly able to determine which cases are appropriate for custody.
The hon. Gentleman’s second amendment would remove from the courts the power to adjourn a hearing for more than four weeks should a medical report have been requested. There is a similar provision in the Housing Act 1996, and we want to bring local authority injunctions under section 222 of the Local Government Act 1972, in line with that. Again, we should not take a rigid approach. We should ensure that sufficient time is allowed for the preparation of reports—if a medical report cannot be produced in four weeks, the court will probably have to decide the case without it. However, if mental health problems are a factor, the details should properly be before the court when it decides whether to make an injunction. The hon. Gentleman’s amendments unreasonably restrict the ability of the court to make a proper decision in such cases, so I ask him to withdraw them and to place a little more faith in the legal system.
Martin Horwood (Shadow Minister (Environment), Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Cheltenham, Liberal Democrat)
I am impressed by the Minister’s faith in the system and her belief in the courts. There is an argument for retaining a level of flexibility, but I commend the idea of attaching some kind of restraint to the process, which might draw far more people into custody than I think she would want. Nevertheless, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.