Clause 1
Serious Crime Bill [Lords]
10:30 am
Jeremy Browne (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Taunton, Liberal Democrat)
This is the first time since I was elected two years ago that I have served as a member of a Bill Committee, and it is a privilege to do so under your chairmanship, Mr. Bercow. I hope that others will bear what I have said in mind if there are any glitches in my performance during the ensuing weeks.
I am throwing myself into the deep end by getting to the nub of matters at the start of the Committee’s consideration of the Bill. I shall explain why I consider this group of amendments to be of such import. The essential point is this: in order to fall foul of the Bill’s provisions, the court needs to be satisfied only that a person has committed an offence or may commit an offence. That is not a sufficiently rigorous threshold, which is why the amendment would, after “satisfied”, add “beyond reasonable doubt”. I shall give the Committee a little background and explain my motivation.
First, I shall tell the Committee about some of the representations that have been made. Kirsty Brimelow, the spokesperson for the Bar Council, said:
“The tortuous logic appears to be that the word ‘prevention’ means that restrictions are not punitive. This is word play and the logic is fallacious.”
The Criminal Bar Association said that one would need an “astute gymnastic mind” to be convinced of the provisions. John Stalker, a notable former deputy chief constable of Greater Manchester who appears regularly in the media, said that
“super-ASBOs, as these are being called, are not the answer to heavyweight criminals. They may be OK for hoodies on the street”
but that they were not appropriate for heavyweight criminals.
So a person need not commit a criminal offence and need not be found guilty by a jury “beyond all reasonable doubt”. I was led to believe when I was growing up—and people still believe it to be the case today—that people expected such a threshold if their liberties were to be curtailed. All that is needed under the Bill is for the court to be “satisfied” in that regard. If people subsequently breached what John Stalker called the super-ASBO, criminal sanctions could follow even though the person had not been found guilty of an offence to that standard or burden of proof. That is my motive for moving the amendment.