Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill

Your Lordships’ House is familiar with this argument. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, raise this issue whenever there is an opportunity to discuss ASBOs. I am afraid theirs is not an argument with which I have a great deal of sympathy. They seek to remove the automatic imposition of reporting restrictions on proceedings against juveniles for breaching their ASBOs or which relate to the making of an ASBO against juveniles on conviction of criminal offences. Publicity of these proceedings is often an integral part of local agencies’ efforts to tackle anti-social behaviour. It is not about naming and shaming, but ASBOs are made in open court and, unless the court imposes restrictions, the media are entitled report them, even if they involve young people. It is for the court to decide whether to impose reporting restrictions. I was interested in what the noble Lord and the noble Baroness said, because my attention has been drawn recently to a case reported in the Argus on Saturday 19 January. The headline ran, ““MPs hit out at ban on naming teenager. Asbo yob u-turn by magistrates””. It reported a case, heard in Brighton and Hove magistrates’ court, where the court ruled that the local newspaper could not name the teenage delinquent concerned. The court made a firm decision, but it produced this response from one of the local politicians, the Lewes MP, Norman Baker, who said: "““The Argus is absolutely right on this and it has left me very concerned. If someone has committed an offence, the details should be made available to the public. The whole point of an Asbo is so the person who has one will be identified””." That puts the case perfectly well. It was no minor matter. The anti-social behaviour reported in the local newspaper related to a youth from the area who had a long history of yob behaviour and had been banned from parts of the city centre. He threw a brick through the window of a house, injuring a teenage girl, smashed six car windscreens, stabbed an inflatable dinghy, causing criminal damage, and was in a gang which attacked an innocent father. It was exactly the sort of behaviour that ASBOs are intended to deal with. The local Labour MP, David Lepper, made complaints similar to those of the reasonably local Liberal Democrat MP for Lewes, Norman Baker, about the effect of the court’s order. The case illustrates that the magistrates can rule in certain circumstances that publicity is inappropriate —the local politicians took a different view on the appropriateness of reporting restrictions. Norman Baker seemed to be arguing quite clearly for the Liberal Democrats that publicity is essential in these cases. For once, I entirely agree with the representative from Lewes. The law is best left as it is so that those in the local community and the victims of anti-social behaviour know and can see that something positive has been done to deal with it. Publicising the prohibitions also helps the community enforce the order. Publicity is not to punish or shame the individual; it is simply to remind the local community that action has been taken, that it can be effective and that the community has, in its informal way, an important part to play. We need to remember that anti-social behaviour of juveniles, and adults, made subject to ASBOs can have a serious and/or lasting effect on people’s lives. The case to which I have referred illustrates the way in which it could have such an impact. The needs of individuals must be balanced with the wider needs, issues and concerns of the local community, which has an equal right to be protected. The court can impose reporting restrictions if they are appropriate. They might be appropriate, for instance, in the case of somebody who perhaps has some mental ill health, and one might expect the court to behave rather differently. However, the law is best left as it is. It should be left to the discretion of the courts, even where they attract some opprobrium for the way in which they behave. A requirement exists in any event for the court to have regard to the welfare of the child or young person. The existing legal framework is working well in practice. I would not encourage the Committee to support the amendment. We have got the balance about right. It helps us in our general policy of tackling anti-social behaviour if we leave the law as it is.