Violent Crime Reduction Bill

The fundamental problem with ASBOs and this new drinking banning order is that they are sought as civil orders. This means that a different standard of proof applies and orders can be made on the basis of hearsay evidence. Tittle-tattle from the neighbours has been sufficient to found an ASBO on—and anonymous tittle-tattle at that. The problem that has arisen with ASBOs is that they have criminalised conduct that is not otherwise criminal. Since the breach of an ASBO—whatever prohibition may be in it—is a criminal offence, people have been sent to prison for up to five years for doing things for which they would not face a criminal charge initially. That has been the weakness and the problem behind the orders. I am concerned that drinking banning orders should not have that fatal flaw in them. The proposed insertion of the word ““appropriate””, which alters parliamentary counsel’s drafting, is not a criticism of parliamentary counsel, who I have no doubt will never look at this Bill again once it has been passed; it will give a guideline to magistrates or to the county court judge, whose job it is to impose the order in the first place. For the judge to have before him the word ““appropriate””—the direction that that order must be appropriate—is important. It might be easy for a person seeking an order to paint such a picture that the tribunal thinks, ““Well, it is necessary to do something about this; it is necessary to impose this, that and the other prohibition””. I would like to see a check on that thought process, so that the judge has to ask himself, ““Is what I am setting out in this order appropriate?””““Appropriate”” is an important word and I will return to it at a later stage of this Bill.