I beg to move amendment 38, in clause 12, page 12, line 16, leave out

“on the balance of probabilities” and insert “beyond reasonable doubt”.

This amendment would raise the burden of proof for imposing a serious disruption prevention order to the criminal standard.

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 39, in clause 12, page 12, line 21, leave out

“on the balance of probabilities” and insert “beyond reasonable doubt”.

This amendment would raise the burden of proof for imposing a serious disruption prevention order to the criminal standard.

The purpose of these amendments is to raise the burden of proof in relation to SDPOs to the criminal standard, rather than the balance of probabilities. Simply put, there is a reason why we use a higher bar for crimes that result in people being fined or losing their liberty, and the risks are the same here. One condition of an SDPO could be that someone has to wear an electronic monitor and have their every movement tracked. Given the impact on day-to-life, it is not acceptable that that could be imposed just because the evidence suggests that the offence is more likely than not to have been committed. Justice requires that people are given due process, and it is vastly inappropriate for a low standard of proof to be used when we are, effectively, taking away someone’s rights and restricting their movements. I think this measure shows that we are slipping into a concerning state of affairs, and that is why my amendments suggest that the situation should be rectified.

I also want to talk about keeping trust with the public, and I am thinking of Peter Fahy’s comments last week about the challenges of dealing with protests. Our concern with the legislation is that when the police fail to deal with things effectively, they are seen as incompetent, and that risks public trust. For the public to have trust, they must feel that punishments are fairly applied. We heard a lot in the evidence sessions last week about the importance of policing by consent. That is something that I am passionate about as a former police officer, and it is what makes British policing unique. It is a fundamental principle enshrined in our justice system, and to maintain this consent and to further trust, people must know that sanctions are applied fairly.

I do not wish to add to what the hon. Lady has said, other than to say that we agree with the amendments.

The amendments, I am afraid, are a deliberate attempt to water down the courts’ ability to place an SDPO on those who are intent on repeatedly disrupting the lives of others, as we have talked about a lot during our consideration of the Bill. Amendments 38 and 39 attempt to raise the burden of proof required for SDPOs from

“on the balance of probabilities” to “beyond reasonable doubt”, in effect requiring the criminal rather than the civil standard of proof. Amendment 38 raises the burden of proof required when considering whether an offence constitutes a protest-related offence for the purpose of making a serious disruption prevention order. Amendment 39 does the same when a court considers whether a person has engaged, in the last five years, in previous behaviour that would qualify them for an SDPO.

The amendments would make it more challenging for a court to place an SDPO on prolific activists who engage in criminal or unjustifiable behaviour. As this is a court order, I see no issue with requiring the civil burden of proof. The Opposition have shown much enthusiasm for injunctions, which operate to a civil burden of proof, and the same burden would be required here. For the avoidance of doubt, for someone to be convicted for breaching an SDPO, the criminal burden of proof would apply.

I want to query the Minister’s use of the phrase “unjustifiable behaviour”. What would that cover?

We have discussed the range of offences that offenders commit. In presenting the requirement for this order to a court, the police would have to make a case that a series of offences had occurred, or indeed that serious disruption had been caused by the individuals’ behaviour, to warrant this order. We will come on to the substance of those matters, and we can debate it at that point. For the reasons I have given, we do not agree with the amendment, and we hope that the hon. Member will withdraw it.

This is a probing amendment to get the Government’s view on the matter. The Minister has made it clear that he thinks the civil burden is appropriate at this time, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Scott Mann.)

Adjourned till this day at Two o’clock.