Violent Crime Reduction Bill

The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, has done the Committee a singular service in pointing out two problems that arise. First, what does Clause 1 cover? Secondly, how do we avoid its breadth being tested in the courts? The structure of Clause 1 indicates that a drinking banning order is one that prohibits the individual against whom it is made from doing the things described or specified in the order. There is obviously no limitation involved in Clause 1(1). Clause 1(2) gives a broad discretion to impose any prohibition which is,"““necessary for the purpose of protecting other persons from criminal or disorderly conduct by the subject while he is under the influence of alcohol””." What does the phrase ““while he is under the influence of alcohol”” mean? In the criminal law we are familiar with the concept of a person being ““drunk and disorderly””. Whether a person is drunk does not take a great deal of describing. However, ““under the influence of alcohol”” is a much vaguer term and does not involve the question of whether a person has been disinhibited by the effects of alcohol. So it is a very vague expression. What is the difference between being drunk—a concept already punished by the criminal law—and being under the influence of alcohol? The next issue that arises is whether the prohibition order can contain a prohibition on a person’s conduct when he is sober. The order is necessary for the purposes of protecting other persons from criminal conduct by the subject ““while he is under the influence of alcohol””. Supposing he is sober? Does he breach the order if he goes into a public house when he is sober if he is prohibited from doing so under Clause 1(3) when he is under the influence of alcohol? It is clearly a very important question. If a man goes into a pub sober, and then becomes drunk inside, has he breached a prohibition which prevents him ““entering”” licensed premises—““entering”” is the word used in Clause 1(3)—when he is under the influence of drink? Divisional court, here we come: More money for lawyers for sorting out precisely what is the purport of that subsection. The purpose of the Conservative amendments, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said, is to flush out what sort of prohibition the Government have in mind. My Amendment No. 4 has the same purpose: to insert the word ““appropriate”” before ““necessary”” in Clause 1(3) so as at least to make sure that the prohibitions contained in a drinking banning order have something to do with drinking. We are all familiar now with the way in which ASBOs have been used. They have covered a variety of conduct which must go far beyond that in the minds of those who originally framed the legislation. They have been used to ban people from wearing caps, from keeping pigs or geese, from playing records of classical music and from sunbathing in a thong. All sorts of peculiar things have banned by ASBOs, and we are at least entitled to know what is to be the extent of a drinking banning order as set out in Clause 1. I await the Minister’s reply with interest.