Serious Crime Bill [HL]

This seems to me a rather important amendment. Indeed, it goes to the heart of my objection to the Bill—that is, the use of the civil courts to perform what is fundamentally a function that belongs to the criminal courts. During her reply at the end of the Second Reading debate, I invited the Minister to have another look at the case of McCann, which is reported in 2003 1 Appeal Cases at 787. My memory of that case was that the House of Lords decided that the criminal standard of proof should apply in ASBO cases. I looked at McCann between then and now. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, said at page 825: "““Given the seriousness of the matter, the court should be satisfied to the criminal standard””." This very issue was at stake. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Steyn, said the same at page 812. He said that magistrates, "““must in all cases [under the ASBO legislation] apply the criminal standard””." Nothing could be clearer than that, and nothing could be clearer than the fact that serious crime is a great deal more serious than anti-social behaviour. Therefore, the case for applying the criminal standard in the Bill is overwhelming, and I do not see how the Minister can resist this amendment or the consequential removal of Clause 33(2). I know that the Minister reads the law reports when she has time, which cannot be all that often. I sometimes wonder whether those responsible for drafting criminal legislation do the same. If she sees her way to accepting this essential amendment, many of my objections to the Bill, although not all of them by any means, will be removed.