My Lords, I have added my name to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dear. Like him, for as long as I can remember the Home Office has been bringing forward ill thought-out proposals with little regard for the consequences. Parliament scrutinises them, and they are from time to time defeated. I, like the noble Lord,
thought that some lessons would have been learnt from our debate on “insulting”. I fear that from time to time the Home Office does not fulfil its purpose as the guardian of our liberties and a watchtower against the infringement of those liberties. I can go back a long time. Over the decades, Parliament has been concerned with loads of proposals of this kind which have not been thought out because they emerge from the fortress mentality of the Home Office, which imprisons so many Home Secretaries of all parties.
We have heard many objections, which I shall not repeat, to these proposals to lower the threshold and inevitably catch a much larger number of people than Parliament would want. As a lifelong criminal law practitioner, I, like the noble Lord, Lord Dear, give the highest of values to the importance of certainty, and the European Convention on Human Rights affirms the common law. When she agreed to the removal of the word “insulting” from Section 5 of the Public Order Act, the Home Secretary, informed Parliament that:
“There is always a careful balance to be struck between protecting our proud tradition of free speech and taking action against those who cause widespread offence with their actions”.—[Official Report, Commons, 14/1/13; col. 642.]
I agree wholeheartedly with the need for a careful balance. This proposal, including the Government’s amendment, is the wrong side of that balance. “Harassment, alarm or distress” is well tested by the courts and in its application. “Nuisance or annoyance” is such an elastic term that it could, if it were applied widely, be used as open-ended machinery to catch all sorts of people who really should not be before the courts. Somebody with a placard saying that the end of the world is nigh, a preacher or maybe a politician on the street during an election may well be caught because they will certainly cause annoyance to someone. Are those the kinds of people that we want to haul before the courts?
The Government say that their formula is hallowed and supported by 15 years of case law and is readily understood. The reality is that it has been tested only within the narrow confines of housing-related cases, and there are limitations on who can bring such actions. Like all former constituency Members, I have experience of dealing with housing problems. I can affirm that there is sometimes a need for strong action to be taken in cases where people are stable and cannot move. You have to do something to try to remedy that situation. There may be strong arguments for a lower threshold there, but to extend that lower threshold in a situation which has been tested only in the housing section is a bridge too far.
I fear that the Government’s amendment does not help us; it merely underlines the situation and may indeed make it worse. The test to be satisfied is the balance of probabilities. I heartily disapprove of such a test, which can ultimately lead to a loss of liberty for the individual for disobedience. The court must consider and decide whether it is,
“just and convenient to grant an injunction”.
What on earth does that mean? Convenient for whom? Just is perhaps a slightly easier concept, but I wonder how far it has been tested. We are familiar with the
concept of the interests of justice, but “just and convenient”? One is horrified that this kind of clause, these kinds of words, are put in a statute at all.
For the existing ASBOs, the test is, of course, the criminal one of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The alleged burden is well known and well established, and when it is suggested here that the order must be shown to be necessary, why do we have to depart from the long-hallowed practice, which has been tested?
I support, and pray in aid, what the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said when she quoted Lord Justice Sedley. I shall not repeat the words, which are still ringing in our ears; I shall merely say that, as the noble Baroness told us, he finished by saying:
“Freedom to speak … inoffensively is not worth having”.
We do not want to catch people who merely annoy, or merely cause a nuisance. There must be a higher threshold.
It was my duty, as Attorney-General, to consider prosecutions when anti-Semitic material was published. Even that legislation could be said to be an infringement of free speech, but over the decades there was material so unacceptable that it had to be dealt with firmly. Where my discretion had to be exercised, I tried to approach the decision with the greatest care. Deciding not to prosecute was probably more difficult than deciding to prosecute. There have been other limitations on free speech over the years, and when Parliament attempts to limit free speech, each and every one of those limitations must be considered with the utmost care. We must be ever vigilant not to breach the fundamental concept of free speech.