My Lords, I listened with particular interest to what my noble and learned friend Lord Lyell has just said. It strikes me as very odd that we should be legislating for something that it is illegal to do—in other words, produce injunctions for those under 18. I was impressed by what the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said about the implication of getting a civil order, which could make the police sloppy in prosecution. I suggest that the problem of gangs is nothing new. I remember my father telling me, when I was a small boy, how well Sir Percy Sillitoe had done with pre-war Glasgow gangs. By proper policing and intense detective work, the gang culture in Glasgow was dealt a very heavy blow. Surely that is the way to go—good, proper, heavy policing, getting a conviction and locking up the real nasties. That must be right, because if you do use these civil orders, it will be tempting, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said, not to be as efficient as possible in your policing.
The Minister mentioned without notice injunctions. The point about them is that the chap probably does not even know that an injunction has been made, which must be a bad way to go. He also said that something was not properly engaged—that is what I have written down here—and that the police had not got to it. What they want to do is to put an order on somebody whom they suspect is going wrong, to give them time to do the proper detective work. That surely goes against every single principle of English law, going back to the Magna Carta. You have to prove somebody guilty of a crime beyond all reasonable doubt, in trial by his peers. If we go down these slippery ways of civil injunctions, that will ultimately undermine the rule of law and the liberty of the subject. I concede that talking about the liberty of the subject when it applies to a Kray twin appears unattractive. However, it is of such fundamental importance. We should never lose sight of that ancient English liberty, because it is so good.
Having listened to what everybody has said, I shall withdraw the amendment, although I reserve the right to come back to discuss it at Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 126 withdrawn.
Policing and Crime Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Earl of Onslow
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 13 October 2009.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Policing and Crime Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
713 c168-9 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 13:14:55 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_583567
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_583567
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_583567