Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Dear Excerpts

Wednesday 8th January 2014 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Dear]

1: Clause 1, page 1, line 8, leave out from “in” to end of line 9 and insert “anti-social behaviour.
( ) Anti-social behaviour is—
(a) conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person, or (b) in the case of an application for an injunction under this section by a housing provider or by a local authority when exercising similar housing management functions, conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any person.”

[Lord Dear (CB)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 1, I want to be absolutely clear on one thing: anti-social behaviour can be, and often is, a blight on society and on those who suffer as victims of individuals who care only for themselves—people who are thoughtless, selfish or deliberately provocative. I believe, as many in your Lordships’ House will, too, that the law should continue to try to prevent that happening and to offer relief to those who suffer from that sort of behaviour. Their well-being is precious. On the other hand, civil liberty is precious, too, and a balance has to be struck between those two requirements.

My amendment is largely concerned with that balance and with a search for certainty, precision and clarity. It is concerned with the legal requirement that the law should be precise and not undermine fundamental human freedoms. The amendment is of course also about anti-social behaviour but the primary issue is an important and very long-established jurisprudential principle. From at least the days of Halsbury, it has been recognised that the law should be clear, reasonable, precise and unambiguous. People must know what the law demands of and grants to them. That principle is followed in all developed democracies. For example, in the USA the void for vagueness doctrine allows a statute to be struck down if it lacks sufficient definiteness or specificity so that:

“Men of common intelligence cannot be required to guess at the meaning of the enactment”.

That is from the case of Winters v New York in 1948.

Existing ASBO and public order legislation addresses anti-social behaviour by defining it in those circumstances as conduct that causes harassment, alarm or distress—a threshold test accepted by lawyers and lay people alike that has been well understood after years of judicial interpretation and never seriously challenged or openly criticised as too restrictive in scope. The Bill before us seeks to replace that three-word threshold test of harassment, alarm or distress with two new words: “nuisance or annoyance”. In so doing, it will open the door to uncertainty, confusion and legal injustice. Most of Clause 1 is concerned with the mechanics of the new injunctive procedure but the threshold test is the pivotal point around which everything else revolves. To put it another way, it is the foundation upon which all that is new will be based. The present threshold test of harassment, alarm or distress is about to be replaced with the altogether more imprecise words “nuisance or annoyance”. In other words, the net is being cast much wider—far too wide, in my opinion.

I am grateful to those who have supported me in tabling this amendment. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, was one of the most respected Lord Chancellors in the past half-century. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, was an eminent Attorney-General. Both are signatories. So, too, is the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, who brings a wealth of experience at the Bar as a practising QC and who spoke on 18 November in Committee on my behalf when I was unavoidably prevented from being in my place. That day, she tabled in my name a very similar amendment to the one we consider now. I am grateful to her for setting out the proposition with great skill—cogently, powerfully and persuasively.

She reflected that the law should be precise and not undermine fundamental human freedoms. She recognised that anti-social behaviour was a serious problem but that action to deal with it should be balanced against the need to preserve civil liberties. She reminded the House that the Commons Home Affairs Committee had said that Clause 1 of the Bill is “far too broad”. She paid tribute, as I do now, to the opinion—widely circulated in your Lordships’ House—of the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, a former Director of Public Prosecutions, who roundly attacked the Bill saying that, “Nuisance or annoyance”, is a phrase,

“apt to catch a vast range of everyday behaviours to an extent that may have serious implications for the rule of law”.

He went on to say:

“In my view, the combination of a low and vague threshold for the behavioural trigger, coupled with the civil standard of proof, creates an unacceptable risk that individuals will inappropriately be made subject of a highly intrusive measure that may greatly impact on their fundamental rights”.

It is not only Members of this House and of the other place who are concerned. A wide, and even disparate, range of organisations and civil liberty groups have expressed the same opposition. Justice, Liberty, the Criminal Justice Alliance, the Standing Committee for Youth Justice, Big Brother Watch, the National Secular Society on the one hand, the Christian Institute on the other, the Association of Chief Police Officers and many more have all said the same thing. A letter was published in the Times on 10 June last year in which around two dozen organisations expressed opposition to the phrase “nuisance or annoyance”. It reminded us that an injunction in those terms could be applied to anyone over the age of 10. It reminded us that it was subject to a new burden of proof, lowered to the civil burden on the balance of probabilities. It reminded us that it is open to indefinite duration and does not require any form of intent, and that a breach of the injunction can result in serious sanctions, including imprisonment.

I have a distinct feeling of déjà vu in speaking to this amendment, for it was only just over 12 months ago, on 12 December 2012, that I proposed an amendment to remove the word “insulting” from Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. The ingredients of that debate were strikingly similar to the issues today. Again, an important legal freedom was then at stake. The word “insulting” had been employed more and more to curb the exercise of free speech in public. That fundamental right was being abused. More and more, police and prosecutors were unwilling to exercise discretion—some might say that they were unwilling to exercise common sense—and they increasingly deferred to the courts for a decision. That increased the growth of the chilling effect, the definition of the word “insulting” became blurred, injustice increased and confusion reigned. Your Lordships agreed that amendment, voting 3:1 with a majority of almost 100 to strike “insulting” from the statute on the ground that it was no longer precise enough. The only real difference in that exercise a year ago and today is that then I was able to cite a very long catalogue of examples of the results of poor legislation, and today we can only anticipate that such a list will develop—albeit an anticipation with some confidence.

No doubt it is to avoid an identical problem that the Association of Chief Police Officers has advised that, although it broadly supports the new IPNA, it believes that the suggested threshold is unreasonably low and it, too, advocates a return to the “harassment, alarm or distress” test.

With all those examples of the results of imprecise and vague legislation, I am frankly at a loss to understand why the Home Office is so eager to repeat the exercise, yet again facing a solid wall of resistance from experienced groups and learned individuals. I can but recall the words of the 1960s protest song—“When will they ever learn?”.

The phrase “nuisance or annoyance” has been borrowed, or perhaps lifted, from the context of existing housing legislation, which involves of course neighbours living in close proximity. In those special housing circumstances it is clearly almost impossible simply to move out or to look the other way or pay no attention. The present test in the housing sphere is restricted to conduct affecting the management functions of the landlord. What is appropriate in an environment with two-inch-thick party walls, or with 10 or more front doors opening onto a balcony on the fifth floor of a tower block, or with cramped lifts and common parts, all of that is clearly inappropriate, surely, in a public square.

Nuisance or annoyance, I would maintain, cannot and should not be applied to the countryside, the public park, shopping malls, sports grounds, the high street, Parliament Square, Speakers’ Corner and so on, because that risks it being used against any of us and against anyone in society. That risks it being used against those who seek to protest peacefully, noisy children in the street, street preachers, canvassers, carol singers, trick-or-treaters, church bell ringers, clay pigeon shooters and nudists—yes, they, too, have raised objections with me and, I know, other Members of your Lordships’ House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I do not intend to give any examples to my noble friend. I have given the reason why we have a single test for anti-social behaviour leading to an IPNA. I have given my reasoning, and I hope that my noble friend will accept it; I am not going to go into listing individual activities that the IPNA is intended to address. That is why we have a single test and why noble Lords will understand that I am speaking in justification of that single test.

The second part of the test is not a throwaway test, as some have suggested. It is under this limb of the test that the court will consider whether it is reasonable and proportionate in all the circumstances to grant an injunction. In making such an assessment, the court will consider the impact on the respondent’s convention rights, including the rights to freedom of speech and assembly.

I agree with the noble Lord that we should not leave it to the courts to apply these important safeguards. All these factors will weigh on the minds of front-line professionals in judging whether to apply for an injunction. Our draft guidance makes this clear. This will be backed up by a framework of professional standards and practice operated by the police, local authorities and housing providers.

Having said all that—and I apologise to my noble friend for not giving him an example—I have listened to the strength of feeling around the house on this issue. The Government’s purpose is plain: we wish to protect victims. ASB, or anti-social behaviour, ruins lives and wrecks communities. In our legislation, we need to ensure that authorities seeking to do so have coherent and effective powers to deal with anti-social behaviour. Recognising noble Lords’ concerns, I commit to take the issue away to give myself the opportunity in discussion with the noble Lord and others to provide a solution that clarifies the use of the legislation and safeguards the objective, which I think is shared around this House, of making anti-social behaviour more difficult and protecting those who are victims of it.

On those grounds, and on the understanding that the Government will return to the issue at Third Reading, I will not move for now government Amendment 2, and I hope that on the commitment to discuss the issue the noble Lord, Lord Dear, will not press his amendment.

[Lord Dear]

My Lords, we have been detained for something over two hours and I shall take no more than a couple of minutes of your Lordships’ time to say what I have to say. First, I sincerely thank all those who have spoken in this debate, particularly the three signatories to my amendment and the Minister, who has had to sit through a varied and interesting debate.

Secondly, I want to pick up on the chilling effect. The experience with the word “insulting” in the Public Order Act is sufficient in itself to indicate what front-line practitioners will do. Governed as they are by very well-oiled complaints machinery, they will undoubtedly be faced with many examples when a set of circumstances are produced for them, and they will be virtually pressurised into taking some sort of action, to pursue the case and push it through to the courts to decide. That is the easy option, and it is what happened all too often with “insulting”. To take an exercise in discretion and turn around to the complainant and say, “Frankly, I think we should let this one go by”, is not an option that they will take willingly. That is undoubtedly why the Association of Chief Police Officers as one group has said that it thinks that “nuisance and annoyance” is wrong and that we should stay with the well tried formula of “harassment, alarm or distress”.

The choice between those two wordings is the pivotal point of the legislation—the absolute foundation on which everything else hangs. We can talk for as long as we like about reasonable, just, convenient, necessary and all those adjectives, and try to make it work but, if the pivot does not work, all the rest falls away. The pivot suggested by the Government is “nuisance and annoyance”. We have no knowledge of what will happen if that comes into play, but we know what will happen with “harassment, alarm or distress”; it is well proven, well tried and respected, and has never been faulted. To move way from that is a step into the dark.

We have had no examples whatever of the sort of conduct that “nuisance and annoyance” seeks, rightly, to address. I pay great tribute to the Minister, for whom I have a huge liking and respect, but unless he can satisfy me—and I suspect that this is the case with others in the Chamber, from what I pick up from the atmosphere—that he is willing to move immediately to “harassment, alarm or distress”, I must seek to divide the House. I invite him to respond to that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

My Lords, if I understand the position that the Minister has taken up, he will have an open discussion, the precise outcome of which cannot, of course, be forecast. He will take account of all aspects of what has been put forward in the hope that we can, between us, reach an agreed solution to the problem which has the support of the whole House.

[Lord Dear]

My Lords, with the greatest respect to the Minister, I do not think that we can go forward on a pious hope. I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.