My Lords, I move Amendment 231A in my name and speak to the other amendments in this group. These amendments relate to what happens after a serious violence reduction order has been granted.
Amendments 231A and 231B remove the requirements for the offender to give, and update the police on, information about where they are living, including the home address on the day the order is given—which will be given to the court in any event and is therefore not necessary—any other place they regularly reside, and any place they move to or intend to spend more than a month living at. Noble Lords should ask themselves what the purpose of this power is. Is it so that the police can trace the offender, track their every move and then wait outside the place where they live, to stop and search them as soon as they leave? Create a power to stop and search someone who may or may not have carried a knife in the past if you must, whether you suspect them of having a knife on them at the time or not, but to enable, or even encourage, harassment of these individuals by supplying the police with continually updated information about their whereabouts smacks of stalking by the state.
As I will point out in a moment, SVROs can be renewed indefinitely. One of the most important ways a young criminal can turn their life around is to move away from the area where they were involved in a gang, for example, to start a new life. These provisions mean that their reputation follows them, making it even more difficult for them to be rehabilitated. They may have moved on, but the police will continue to stop and search them at will, without any reasonable cause to suspect that the individual is doing anything wrong. The offender would be justified in thinking, “What is the point? May as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb.” On the previous group, the Minister said that if an offender wants to move away from offending the Government will support them. Updating the police continually about where this young person has moved to, and enabling them to target that individual through stop and search, even though they are trying to turn their lives around, does not sound to me like supporting them in trying to move on from offending.
For similar reasons, the proposed power to give a chief constable for the area where the offender lives, and the area where the police believe the offender is or intends to come to, to apply to a court to extend or renew the SVRO should also be removed, as proposed by Amendments 235 and 236. The chief constable for the area where the offence was committed should be able to apply to have the SVRO varied, renewed or discharged—that is fair enough—but this should not be the case for any chief constable, anywhere in the country, who knows or even just thinks that the offender might be coming to their area. Offenders who genuinely want to turn their lives around should be able to move on with their lives. If they move home and fall into their old ways, the police in the area where they have come to notice can ask the chief constable in the area where the original offence was committed to make an application on their behalf. These provisions are unnecessary and potentially counterproductive in reducing serious violence.
Amendment 238 limits the number of times an SVRO can be imposed. Although each SVRO is restricted to a maximum duration of two years, SVROs can be renewed indefinitely. This means that our electrician’s mate could potentially be stopped and searched by the police, without any reasonable suspicion that he has anything unlawful on him, for the rest of his life. There are very few offences where there is not a spent period, after which the conviction no longer has to be declared. Yet the provisions in this Bill mean that, on the balance of probabilities, someone for whom there is no evidence of their ever having carried a knife could be targeted by the police for suspicionless stop and search for the rest of their life.
5.15 pm
The Government will point to the safeguards, such as they are in the Bill, and say this is very unlikely to happen. We would point to the Metropolitan Police gangs matrix, a database of alleged street gang members created by the Metropolitan Police Service in 2012, which has been criticised for its use of circumstantial evidence. A 2018 investigation by the Information Commissioner’s Office found that the use of the gangs matrix at the time was in breach of data protection laws and issued an enforcement notice to bring the operation of the system in line with the law. There is a real danger of circumstantial evidence being brought by the police before the courts to justify continued renewal of SVROs when that would be wholly unjustified. Amendment 238A in my name ensures that an SVRO can be varied, extended or renewed only if the court is satisfied that it is a proportionate way to ensure that people are protected and offences involving knives are prevented. This is almost identical to my Amendment 228 in the previous group in relation to consideration of the original grant of an SVRO. As I explained on the previous group, these orders are draconian, are likely to be ineffective based on evidence of other suspicionless stop and searches, and are likely to disproportionately impact on ethnic minorities. This amendment is designed to ensure that courts take these unintended consequences into account before varying or renewing them.
There is a new offence of obstructing the police. SVROs and related offences are created by amending Part 11 of the Sentencing Code. New Section 342G sets out offences relating to SVROs, including in new subsection (1)(e) that the offender subject to an SVRO commits an offence if he
“intentionally obstructs a constable in the exercise of any power conferred by section 342E”,
which is headed “Serious violence reduction orders: powers of constables”. Other than a maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment, what is the difference between that offence and the offence under Section 89(2) of the Police Act 1996, which is that the offence of obstructing a police officer is committed when a person
“wilfully obstructs a constable in the execution of his duty”?
What is the difference other than the sentence? Surely a constable exercising any power in relation to SVROs is acting in the execution of his duty. We believe that one month in prison is a sufficient deterrent and the new offence is not necessary. Amendment 234 seeks to remove this new offence from the Bill.