Serious Crime Bill [HL]

I must be doing very poorly indeed today. I apologise if I seem to have lacked the clarity that would enable noble Lords to better appreciate what I am trying to convey. The application to be made under Clause 1 comes in two parts. Those two parts may well, in discharging the civil standard, have different approaches adopted in relation to them. In relation to the first limb, I refer to the seriousness of having to satisfy the court that the, "““person has been involved in serious crime””." Following McCann, it is reasonable to assume that the court is likely to adopt a standard similar to, if not identical, with that of beyond reasonable doubt. In relation to the second limb—the court must be satisfied about both limbs—it is likely that the court would have to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that it had, "““reasonable grounds to believe that the order would protect the public by preventing, restricting or disrupting involvement by the person in serious crime in England and Wales””." I do not say that this preventive order relates to a criminal offence or a criminal act in the way that the noble and learned Lord is concerned about. We say that it is a civil order. Within the civil order there is a sliding scale. The court will look at each element and determine where on that sliding scale the burden of proof should lie. Overall, we say that the burden, on the balance of probabilities, because it is a civil preventive order, is the right standard, confident that McCann will certainly bind the court when it looks at these issues. That is why we do not think that it is important or necessary to include ““beyond reasonable doubt”” in the Bill.