Policing and Crime Bill

The problem with the right hon. Gentleman's contention is that the process is likely to bring the law into disrepute. Injunctions against those under 18 are unenforceable. According to the response that we received from the Government today,""Injunctions must be enforceable and it is unlikely in practice that these injunctions would be enforceable for under 18s because the court cannot fine someone without a source of income."" The Government also refer to the penalties for those over 18, which could involve fines or imprisonment. They say:""a court cannot sentence an individual under the age of 18 to detention…for a civil contempt of court. Therefore where when a gang member is under 18 and is without an independent and ""legitimate source of income, the court would be unable to sanction any breach and so would not grant an injunction."" That constitutes a paper tiger. That is why we have ASBOs. The Government go on to say:""there may be occasions where it would be both appropriate and enforceable"," and that""whilst these instances are likely to be rare"," they want to retain their provisions in the Bill. However, we have not been given an example of where those provisions would be enforceable. If injunctions cannot be enforced, or are refused because they cannot be enforced, there is no point in having the power in the first place. It will simply bring the law into disrepute. The other issue that concerns us particularly, as is reflected in amendment 40, is that of the applicable standards of due process. Breach of an injunction is a civil offence which is treated as civil contempt of court, but must be proved to the criminal standard of "beyond reasonable doubt". In the leading ASBO case, although ASBOs were considered to be civil orders—like injunctions—the House of Lords upheld the argument that the proceedings relating to ASBOs should carry the criminal standard of proof. Magistrates should apply that standard: they must be sure that the individual in question acted in an antisocial manner before they can make the order. We believe that similar standards should apply to injunctions which are very akin to ASBOs. The analogy with ASBOs is particularly acute given the judgment of the Court of Appeal in the Shafi case, which recognised that ASBOs in identical terms could be sought. Some of the proposed injunctions are identical to or more severe than ASBOs, which require proof on the criminal standard. If they are to be more demanding than an ASBO, the argument that they should require the criminal standard of proof is all the stronger.