Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill

I can understand anti-social behaviour orders being seen as some kind of civil law application, but the violent offender orders offer the possibility of creating offences. The unbelievable phrase ““danger to the public”” has been used, but I prefer ““individuals or persons””, which is more realistic than ““the public””. The standard that should always apply as regards the possible commission of an offence is that of the ordinary person on the old Clapham omnibus saying, ““I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that a particular crime has been committed””. I find it difficult to simply say that we are going to use the civil standard when this person could be violent and commit terrible crimes . Another thing I find difficult is what I call pre-emptive possibilities being put into legislation and the presumption that a person may commit a violent crime because someone has said X, Y and Z. This country has always run away from that kind of thing. If a crime has been committed, you would like the offender to be before these people, and simple threatening behaviour and language could be dealt with as a civil case, but here we are talking about the likelihood of endangering individuals and persons, and I do not understand why it should be dealt with as such. It might be because of a refusal to accept that the order has a punitive effect within it and so the Government are saying that it is not really within the criminal ambit. For the sake of protecting the person who may be under the order and the persons or individuals who may be subjected to violent acts, I find myself persuaded that we must have a standard of beyond reasonable doubt, otherwise you can catch out many people. Our doubt is not about magistrates but about the veracity of the evidence. There are people who can speak with great conviction and tell everyone, even under oath, that X, Y and Z happened; that is why in the courts of this land many people end up not being found guilty because of the veracity of the evidence. In Uganda, there was a terrible case I was trying, where the prosecutor simply said, ““You must be guilty because Uganda has 11 million people, and they are not in the dock””. What kind of evidence is that? It may seem more sophisticated using the civil standard but I, for one, question whether it will ensure the veracity of the evidence that we want to rely on. I am not satisfied. By simply saying, ““The court must be satisfied””, you are putting magistrates under unnecessary strain. Let them be very clear what the evidence is and let them decide according to the standard. They know that people will come forward and say things. Is the Minister not aware that there are people who will say anything because they happen not to like your face?