Policing and Crime Bill

Noble Lords will be aware that Clause 33(4) sets out that a court may prohibit a respondent from doing anything, or require the respondent to do anything. I am aware that noble Lords have concerns about those provisions. However, I should make clear that in placing any prohibitions or requirements on a respondent, the court must be satisfied that the prohibitions or requirements are necessary to prevent gang-related violence as per subsection (3). It safeguards against the ordering of measures that are simply punitive and without true purpose. Clause 34 gives examples of effects that prohibitions or requirements could have, and therefore that a court could consider, including effectively to prevent gang-related violence. The list is non-exhaustive to allow maximum flexibility to the courts and police to tailor the provisions to the individual circumstances of each respondent and thereby maximise the effectiveness of the injunctions in protecting the individuals and the public. Amendments 132 and 138, when combined with other amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, would turn Clause 34 into an exhaustive list of prohibitions, instead of an open list of both prohibitions and requirements. The purpose of that appears to be to give a greater degree of certainty to the respondent and to limit the powers of the court. However, that would severely damage the flexibility of the injunction, which is a key aspect of its effectiveness. Gang culture is a modern problem that appears to be changing and evolving all the time. The courts need the flexibility to evolve with the problem, and we do not want to restrict their ability to tackle these issues on an individual and case-by-case basis. I draw noble Lords’ attention to Clause 34(2)(c), to which the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, referred, which makes reference to animals. That demonstrates what I am talking about. Five years ago, it would not have crossed our mind to include such a provision. However, we have seen a steady and exponential rise in the number of gang members using particularly vicious dogs to intimidate and to perpetrate violence. If that subsection were not included in an exhaustive list—and it would not have been before now, because we would not have thought of it—the court would be powerless to make provision in that respect. The problem of gang violence will continue to change and evolve, as it does all the time, because it ties in with culture. There will be new trends that the Government cannot foresee. We believe that the provisions need to be able to keep up with the changing profile of gangs. I recognise the concerns that lie behind these amendments, but we maintain that Clause 33(3) adequately safeguards against unnecessary and punitive prohibitions. On that basis, I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.