My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, has explained, this group of amendments deals with further aspects of the new serious violence reduction order. Amendments 231A and 231B would remove the requirement for an offender subject to an SVRO to notify the police of their home address; any changes to their home address; the address of any other premises at which the offender regularly resides or stays; or the address of any place they decide to live in for a period of one month or more.
We included notification requirements in the legislation in order to help officers to identify those subject to an order in their area. It is a common feature of other offender management regimes, including in relation to sex and terrorism offenders, so we are not breaking any new ground here. We stated in the draft statutory guidance that the police should use the notification stage to engage with the offender and clarify the effects of an SVRO: that is, to explain to the offender in ordinary language the requirements and effects of an SVRO and what offences may be committed if they breach the order. This, along with an up-to-date description, could be used to assist with future identification when conducting a stop and search. It is therefore important that we keep the notification requirement as currently drafted to ensure that officers are able properly to identify those subject to an order.
Amendment 233 would create a defence so that an offender can tell an officer that they are not subject to an SVRO if they have a reasonable excuse to do so. I do not see any circumstances where it would be reasonable for an offender not to tell an officer that they are subject to an SVRO if they are asked. It may be that the noble Lord wants to cover circumstances where an offender subject to an SVRO has a reasonable excuse for carrying a knife. In such circumstances, it would be for the police, and ultimately the courts, to decide whether the reasonable excuse defence was made out in the event that the offender was arrested and then charged with an offence in relation to the possession of a bladed article or offensive weapon.
5.30 pm
Amendment 234 would remove the offence of intentionally obstructing a constable in the exercise of any power conferred by new Section 342E. The noble Lord is of course right that there is an existing offence of wilful obstruction of the police in the execution of their duty under the Police Act 1996. However, the offence in the 1996 Act carries a maximum penalty of a fine of £1,000 or one month’s imprisonment or both.
We believe that a higher maximum penalty of an unlimited fine or two years’ imprisonment or both is appropriate for the offences relating to SVROs.
Amendments 235 and 236 would limit who can apply for the variation, renewal or discharge of an SVRO. These amendments would remove the power of the chief officer of police for the police area in which the offender lives, and a chief officer of police who believes that the offender is in, or is intending to come to, the chief officer’s police area to vary, renew or discharge an SVRO. There will be instances in which a chief officer of police sees it necessary to vary or renew an SVRO to reflect changing circumstances or, indeed, they may conclude that the order can be discharged. We believe that the chief officer for the most relevant force should be able to make such an application, which may well be the force where the offender currently lives or where they are about to reside.
Amendment 238 seeks to limit the number of times an SVRO can be renewed to no more than once. We do not consider this amendment to be necessary given that, although an SVRO can be renewed, the court can only renew an order to lengthen its duration if it is considered necessary to protect the public or any particular members of the public in England and Wales from the risk of harm involving a knife or offensive weapon, or to prevent the offender committing an offence involving a knife or offensive weapon. That said, we will reflect on the debate and consider whether to provide further guidance to the police on factors to consider when determining whether to apply for an SVRO to be renewed in draft statutory guidance.
In response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, we cannot say in advance of the conclusion of the pilot whether it will be necessary to make regulations under new Section 342B.
Amendment 238A seeks to increase the requirements for an SVRO to be varied or renewed. It would require that an order can only be varied or renewed if the SVRO is proportionate to one or more of the relevant aims of the order. The issue here is broadly the same as was the case with Amendment 228 in the previous group. As I said in response to that amendment, it is already a requirement that the court considers the renewal or variation of the order necessary to protect the public or any particular member of the public, including the offender, from the risk of harm and to prevent the offender committing an offence. Again, it would be for the court to decide that it is necessary and proportionate for an order to be renewed or varied on the facts of the case, and in reaching their decision the court is required to act in compatibility with ECHR convention rights under the Human Rights Act.
Finally, turning to government Amendment 232, as I have set out, under new Section 342B of the Sentencing Code, one effect of an SVRO is that the offender is subject to certain notification requirements. Among the information which the offender must provide to the police within three days of the order taking effect is their home address. Amendment 232 simply provides for a definition of “home address” for the purposes of the notification requirements. I hope that my explanation of these provisions will enable the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, to withdraw his amendment.