Policing and Crime Bill

That is not the point. What I am trying to do is ensure that when we introduce draconian powers, we make certain that the individual concerned is subject to those draconian powers. That is the view that the courts have expressed time and again. We should bear in mind the debate in the country more widely about civil liberties, for this is a civil liberties argument. The hon. Gentleman suggests that we go down the route of the civil standard and conclude that, on the balance of probabilities, people have been involved in extremely violent criminal behaviour. If we go down that route, we will run the risk of a major infringement of our civil liberties. If there is evidence of that, I think the criminal standard ought to be applied, bearing in mind the severe restrictions available through the injunction process and the fact that a breach of an injunction will be a criminal offence. As I have said, so far as young people are concerned the injunction process is pretty pointless; the ASBO is the only way in which can be dealt with, and, as the House of Lords has said, that should be judged by the criminal standard. The other issue that I particularly want to raise is set out in amendment 43 and new clause 20: the duration of an injunction. Injunctions can be of indefinite duration—they can go on for 10, 15 or 20 years—if there is no maximum period. We have tabled this amendment and new clause primarily because we think it is important for the House to have the opportunity to consider whether there should be a maximum term. That is especially the case in relation to the interim injunction process. That is not subject to a maximum time limit, but the whole point of an interim injunction—which can be obtained without notice to the individual concerned, and on a lower standard—is that it should be interim and subject to a proper hearing fairly promptly afterwards to determine whether it should be converted into a full injunction. So far, we have been unconvinced by the Government's arguments as to why injunctions of indefinite duration are necessary. They say that if there were a maximum time limit—we have put forward a suggestion as to what it should be, merely for purposes of debate—those applying for the injunctions would automatically apply for the finite maximum period. The alternative argument, however, is that if there were a maximum period, the investigators applying for the injunction would then have to start thinking hard about getting the necessary evidence for a criminal prosecution, rather than relying on the softer option of the available indefinite injunction.