Policing and Crime Bill

My Lords, these amendments would, in their separate and equally problematic ways, require the applicant for a gang injunction to prove that a gang is engaged in criminal activity. Amendment 135 seeks to insert a definition of gang into the legislation. Concerns were expressed during debates in the other place that the provisions originally introduced into the Bill might be used more widely than for the gang members who we were targeting. We listened to those concerns, and amendments were passed on Report in the other place which amended the definition to ensure that the concerns are dealt with. We now feel that the legislation is targeted at the appropriate groups. The definition includes elements of the definition of gang offered by the Conservative Front-Bencher James Brokenshire during the Commons Committee and the Manchester Multi-Agency Gang Strategy definition of gang included in Tackling Gangs, which the Home Office published in May 2008. The effect of Amendment 135 would be to require the police or local authority, in applying for an injunction, to show that the person against whom the injunction was sought has committed violence within a group which was formed for the purpose of criminal activity, or which has engaged in criminal activity together. I understand the concerns of the noble Baroness, but the amendment she proposes would render the provisions unworkable. The police or local authority would have to show that the individual is part of a group which commits criminal acts, or which was formed to commit criminal acts. First, it would be extremely difficult to prove that a group of people got together for the specific purpose of committing criminal acts. A gang will not normally have a written constitution of their aims, or indeed may not have set aims in any sense at all. Also, if the police are aware of a group who have criminal intentions but who have never been able to plan or commit an offence, they would be able to get an injunction against a toothless group of individuals, so the amendments proposed could have the effect of broadening the range of individuals against whom an injunction could be sought. The definition of "gang-related violence" provided in Clause 33(5) requires the applicant to show to the civil standard that violence has occurred, and that this violence was committed within the context of the group. On a practical level, it is easier to prove the actions of a group or individual than the intention of that group, which is what would be required should this amendment be accepted. Secondly, if there is sufficient evidence showing that the group has committed criminal acts, a criminal prosecution should be vigorously pursued against the group or the individual so long as that is in the public interest. We firmly believe that our definition is the best way to make these provisions a realistic and functioning tool for the police and local authorities. Clause 33(5) provides a definition of "gang-related violence". We have no problem with groups of people coming together, but once those groups commit or threaten violence then an injunction can and should be sought. For these reasons, we feel that our definition focuses the applicant on the important issues; namely, the violence being committed by these groups, not simply the groups of and in themselves. Amendments 135A and 135B seek to have a similar effect to Amendment 135 by different means. Rather than inserting a definition of gang, they amend the existing definition of "gang-related violence". Again, I must resist these amendments for the reasons already given. They would require the applicant to show that the gang was habitually engaged in criminal activity, or was a criminal gang. The same problems that I have already set out exist. Where a criminal prosecution is available, clearly that should be pursued—that is what we would always want to do. I hope that, on the basis of the explanation I have given, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.