Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing (Burden of Proof) Amendment Bill 2020

A

Bill

To

Raise the Burden of Proof for Civil Injunctions and Community Protection Notices to the Criminal Standard

BE IT ENACTED by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:―

1. Definitions

(1) For the purposes of this Act, “Beyond reasonable doubt” means as applied in the criminal jurisdiction of England and Wales under the Common Law.

(2) For the purposes of this Act, the Principal act is the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014

2.Ammendments to the Principal act

(1) Section 1 (of Part 1) is amended as follows.

(2) For subsection 2 substitute—

“ (2)The first condition is that the court is satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that the respondent has engaged or threatens to engage in anti-social behaviour.”

(3) Section 43 (of Chapter 1 of Part 4) is amended as follows.

(4) For subsection 1 substitute—

“(1) An authorised person may issue a community protection notice to an individual aged 16 or over, or a body, if satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that—”

3. Retrospectivity

(1) No part of this enactment retrospectivity applies to specific injunctions or community protection notices.

(2) This part of this act retrospectively applies to all common law to which the principle act applies.

3. Short Title, Extent and Commencement

(1) This act shall come into force six months after Royal Assent.

(2) This Act shall extend to England and Wales.

(3) This Act shall be known as the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing (Burden of Proof) Amendment Act 2020

**This bill was written by the Secretary of State for Justice, Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain, The Most Honourable The Marquess of Canterbury /u/ Toastinrussian KG OM CT LVO CBE PC on behalf of the Conservative and Unionist Party (25th Government). The reading will end on the 31st of May at 10pm BST.

Opening Speech

Mr Deputy Speaker,

My Lords and Members of the House of Commons.

I rise today to present this legislation on behalf of the Government. This legislation is simple, yet it is vital to the fairness of our justice system.

We saw that in the exceptionally persuasive Woolmington v DPP the famous Golden Thread speech some of which, for the benefit of the House I shall recite.

“Throughout the web of English Criminal Law one golden thread is always to be seen that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner's guilt subject to... If, at the end of and on the whole of the case, there is a reasonable doubt… the prosecution has not made out the case and the prisoner is entitled to an acquittal. No matter what the charge or where the trial, the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of the common law of England and no attempt to whittle it down can be entertained.”

I stand completely, utterly, firmly behind this statement as the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord High Chancellor. Lacking in evidence and evidence quality is not something that does not get remedied by lowering the burden of proof.

Currently the CI and CPN exploit a gap in the protections on most individuals by being held not to be a criminal charge. Yet a breach of the order will be serious enough to warrant imprisonment. THis is a scheme to ensure harsh punishments while bypassing the appropriate scrutiny at the vital stage of the proceedings. The maximum sentence that could be placed upon the person for breaching that order cannot justify this standard of proof. Those who would argue that the fact a young person may cause harassment or distress to others be apt to carry a potential threshold of five years on the balance of probabilities. The restrictions and constant threat of prison time is in and of itself a type of imprisonment. We have seen this in R (on the application of Jalloh (formerly Jollah)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department. Here the mere threat of imprisonment and restriction of liberty was found to be imprisonment. It is unfathomable that individuals would be subject to this treatment wihtout adequate evidence.

It is clear that such orders that can place substantial infringements on the liberty of a young person when they need it most deserve a higher burden of proof. One can be prevented from going or places for meeting people, being placed in home confinement. While these restrictions may be apt in some circumstances they are not justly doled out.

Let me also explain for the House what the Balance of Probabilities actually means. It means more likely than not. If the Crown can prove that a young person, more likely than not, caused harassment or distress they can have an order placed upon them. It is important to note that in many cases it is a he said she said scenario. I do not believe that this is good enough to stop a young person from seeing their friends, staying with others or, preventing them from continuing to play sports and games to their great benefit. This is obscene and must be changed.

This issue is not only a critical failure of the justice system per se. It affects people everyday. I have spoken to numerous professionals and young people alike who have had a CI or CPN placed upon them without adequate evidence. This is an affront to justice and must be remedied.

This bill will bring both the CI and CPN up to the criminal standard of proof, for while not criminal offences, they clearly bring the possibility of strict punishment.

Mr Speaker, My Lords and Members of the House of Commons: I am proud to commend this bill to the House on Behalf of this Government.