Serious Crime Bill [HL]

The noble Baroness has gone through the various clauses to which we object. It would take far too long for me to go through them individually. However, we should look at Clauses 33 and 34. Clause 33 states: "““Proceedings before the High Court … are civil proceedings. One consequence … is that the standard of proof to be applied by the court in such proceedings is the civil standard of proof””." In Clause 34, proceedings in the Crown Court are civil proceedings. The same civil standard of proof is to be imposed. There are two further consequences: the court, "““is not restricted to considering evidence that would have been admissible in the criminal proceedings in which the person concerned was convicted; and … may adjourn the proceedings in relation to a serious crime prevention order even after sentencing the person concerned””." That indicates the breadth of the proposed orders and the foundations on which they will exist. They are designed to deal with people whom the police suspect of having committed crime that they cannot prove. The enforcement provisions in Clause 25 mean that a person who fails to comply with a serious crime prevention order obtained in these ways—civil standard of proof, civil evidence, hearsay, tittle-tattle, rumour or whatever—can then be locked up for up to five years or fined. That is a way of getting around due process, which is fundamental to justice in the criminal courts of this country, to drag people into prison when the prosecuting authority cannot prove their case. It is iniquitous, and at later stages we will pursue our objection to these clauses and to the whole concept of misusing civil proceedings in the way that this Bill envisages. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.