Violent Crime Reduction Bill

moved Amendment No. 109:"Page 24, line 36, leave out ““is likely”” and insert ““will””" The noble Lord said: In the immortal words of President Reagan, here you go again. This is the clause that introduces directions to individuals who represent a risk of disorder. Just like ASBOs, it is an administrative device, a breach of which leads to the commission of a criminal offence. In this case the proposed direction is to be administered simply by a constable in uniform. He is entitled under Clause 22 to give a direction to an individual requiring him to leave the locality and not to return to it,"““for such period (not exceeding a period of 48 hours) from the giving of the direction as the constable may specify””." If he comes back, he commits an offence. When you have a criminal offence that is formulated in this way, it is necessary to look at the power of the police officer to give the direction. What is the test? It is set out in subsection (2):"““that the presence of the individual in that locality is likely . . . to cause or to contribute to the occurrence of alcohol-related crime or disorder in that locality””." I pause there. The clause does not mean to say that there has been alcohol-related disorder, nor that the individual to whom the direction is given has been or is likely to be responsible for the occurrence of such disorder. If his presence contributes to it, although he may have done nothing himself—if he is with a crowd of people celebrating a stag night, for example—the constable may give him this direction to remove himself from the area and not come back, and threaten him with a criminal charge if he disobeys. So far as I can see, there is absolutely no way anyone can challenge the giving of that direction. A person who appears in a magistrates’ court—because this is a summary conviction matter under Clause 6—is not entitled under this clause to say, ““I wasn’t contributing to alcohol-related crime or disorder, nor was I likely to””. He is not allowed to challenge at any stage the giving of the direction by the constable. We cannot start talking about judicial review of a constable’s decision taken in the street. The measure gives a huge discretion to a police officer to clear the streets in any way he desires. My first amendment replaces the words ““is likely”” with something a little more positive: the clause would say that the presence of the individual in that locality ““will”” cause or contribute to the occurrence of alcohol-related crime or disorder. In other words, the police officer has to be satisfied with a bit more than a probability; he has to be satisfied with an actuality that this crime or disorder is likely to happen. To my mind, that is the very minimum. Of course I oppose the whole of Clause 22 as just another way of adding a further criminal offence. It almost certainly breaches the European Convention on Human Rights. If the convention is to stay in this country for more than a month or two—despite the threats of the Prime Minister and others—and the convention rights mean anything, notably Article 11 and Article 2 of Protocol 4 protecting freedom of movement, the whole of Clause 22 is inimical to it. This is a matter of considerable principle. Awaiting the Minister’s reply, I beg to move.