Clause 83
Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill
5:00 pm
Harry Cohen (Leyton and Wanstead, Labour)
The point has been made and I hope that, when the Government respond in the clause stand part debate, they will at least say how they view the non-molestation order.
The proposed violent offender orders continue the trend of creating civil orders, a breach of which would become a criminal offence. I share Liberty’s view that the orders could become too broad in their application and breach some of the conventions that we are rightly tied up to. Liberty also makes the point that, if the order is too broad, it is more likely to be breached. A person can get caught up in just too many things, instead of the order covering something specific so they know where they are. It said that extraordinary scope will be available for the imposition of restrictions on individual freedom under the clause.
Liberty is saying that the order is unnecessary in some ways because the Criminal Justice Act 2003 provides for anyone convicted of specified offences, punishable by more than 10 years’ imprisonment—violent offences—will be given an indefinite period of imprisonment for public protection and, once released from prison, will be on licence for a minimum of 10 more years. After that, they can apply to the Parole Board for termination of the licence, but the Parole Board might not decide to do so if it regards the person as such a risk. If it does not do so, the person would still be subject to conditions and to recall. The necessity of the orders is in question.
I should like a response from the Under-Secretary about a good point that Liberty makes about retrospection. It seems that, at least initially, the orders could be used retrospectively. Prisoners coming out of prison who were sentenced under the old system may suddenly find orders applied to them under this legislation. That would be a retrospective application of the provision. Again, that could put us in breach of our international legal obligations. Will the Under-Secretary say something about whether that is the intention? That may be justified, but I am not entering the argument on that point: I am just saying that there are problems with retrospection, if that is what is intended.
Liberty says that the provision raises the possibility of the order being applied for at any time and thinks it more appropriate for there to be a window of time, particularly when a licence is coming under review. That is the time for the orders to be applied for, if they are going to be in place at all. There should not be an open-ended approach, meaning that they could be applied for at any time.
Liberty also says that the danger with the orders lies in a risk assessment taking place that identifies someone as being a “risk of serious harm”, without needing to identify a particular person or persons that they are a risk to. That is where the non-molestation orders would come into play, because they would specify the individual. However, the provision becomes too broad, in Liberty’s view, when it relates to risk to the public.
I have mentioned Liberty’s main points as succinctly as I can. There are questions on this set of clauses for the Under-Secretary to respond to.