The noble Baroness mentioned a list of people who support this proposal. It was also one of the issues on which the JCHR was unanimous. I draw the Minister’s attention to our report, where it says that: ""The proposed injunctions are identical to or more severe than ASBOs which require proof on the criminal standard that the individual has behaved","
badly, et cetera. As I said on the last amendment, trial by peers and "innocent until proved guilty" are so fundamental and we must not start allowing people to be put away, which would be the end product of this provision, on the grounds of insufficient standard of proof. Let us be honest; there have been miscarriages of justice even after going through the full standard of proof and the "guilty beyond all reasonable doubt" test. It would be very wrong for us not to have "beyond all reasonable doubt" in these gang-related injunctions, if we are to have them in the first place.
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 c170 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 13:15:00 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_583570
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_583570
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_583570