Policing and Crime Bill

My Lords, Amendments 140A and 141A would place a time limit on the period for an injunction, as has been debated—in this instance, a three-year maximum—and to make injunctions non-renewable. A similar amendment was recommended by the JCHR, as was stated in its report on the Bill, and the Government set out in our response to the report the reasons why we believe that the current provisions are most effective. Amendment 141 would place a time limit on the injunctions, but suggests that a two-year limit would be more appropriate. The Government were initially resistant to placing a limit on the length of prohibitions or requirements that could be imposed by the courts, as we considered that the courts were best placed to decide on a case-by-case basis. However, I understand the concerns behind the amendments, and I have to say that I rather agree with them. I am very happy to consider imposing a time limit in order to increase the legal certainty afforded to the respondent. I am, however, of the view that the injunctions should be renewable. That is to say that, once an injunction has come to end—whether that be because the time limit has expired or because the court has discharged the injunction—the applicant should be free to make a further application to go through the routine again for an injunction against the same respondent if that is considered appropriate. We believe that if there is evidence to suggest that a further injunction would be appropriate, the applicant should not be prevented from making a further application. For the reasons I have outlined, I am willing to table a government amendment on Report to time-limit full injunctions, but I continue to resist the part of the amendment that makes injunctions non-renewable and politely request that it be withdrawn.