Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Faulks Excerpts

Wednesday 8th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)]

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.

[Lord Faulks (Con)]

My Lords, I fear that I am about to break the consensus. I hope that in doing so I do not cause too much nuisance or annoyance. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dear, and others is rather different from the one that was before your Lordships in Committee. The amendment there sought to include a requirement that anti-social behaviour had to be established beyond reasonable doubt before an injunction was obtained. Given the evidential problems that this would have created, the amendment has sensibly been altered so that it no longer requires a criminal standard of proof before a judge can order an injunction.

I tabled an amendment that reflected the views of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I was a member. We had proposed that a reasonableness requirement should be imported into the definition of anti-social behaviour. In other words, there should be an objective element, to deal with the argument that the whole concept of anti-social behaviour was too subjective. The Government’s Amendments 2 and 3, particularly Amendment 2, seemed to me entirely to meet our concerns, and in this regard I am specifically authorised by my noble friend Lord Lester, who is unable to be here today, to say that he supports the Government’s position and would oppose Amendment 1.

It is clear from the speeches that we have already heard that there is concern that the obtaining of an injunction would be too easy, and that there would be a risk of freedom of speech, freedom of association, and the freedom to indulge in activities that some people might regard as annoying, being inhibited. Is this a realistic fear? First, it must be remembered that under Clause 4 the applications can be made only by an agency—for example a local authority, a housing provider or some other such body. That is a defence against inappropriate use. It means that a victim of anti-social behaviour has to go through the filter of a hard-working agency in order to establish the fact that there is sufficient basis to seek an anti-social behaviour order—or, in this case, an IPNA. If it were to be done on the say-so of one individual deciding, perhaps unreasonably or capriciously, that someone else had been guilty of anti-social behaviour, that indeed might be objectionable. But the use of an agency provides an important filter.

At Committee stage, and even at Second Reading, the Minister referred to the guidance. The guidance is given to the front-line professionals—not, with great respect to my noble and learned friend, the courts—to make sure that they do their job correctly. That guidance, which was then in draft, is now, according to an amendment, to be made a specific statutory provision. Page 24 of the advice says that,

“in deciding what constitutes ‘nuisance or annoyance’, applicants must be mindful that this route should not be used to stop reasonable, trivial or benign behaviours that have not caused, and are not likely to cause, harm to victims or communities. For example, children simply playing in a park or outside, or young people lawfully gathering or socialising in a particular place may be ‘annoying’ to some, but are not in themselves anti-social. Agencies must make proportionate and reasonable judgements before applying for an injunction. Failure to do so will increase the likelihood that an application will not be successful”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

I am following my noble friend’s argument closely, but could he give an example of the kind of thing for which he thinks this provision might provide a remedy?

[Lord Faulks]

It would provide a remedy for myriad different circumstances—perhaps the sort of behaviour where youths gather specifically under a particular person’s window and regularly play noisy music, are aggressive and perhaps smoke cannabis, providing day by day harassment of individuals.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Surely that would be covered by the present law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Faulks]

It might be, but the problem is that the test for harassment is fraught with imprecision, as is any test that any Government might provide. Whether something gets over the hurdle of harassment will be somewhat uncertain. No doubt it will be argued in a particular case that it does not go far enough to constitute harassment, but it will nevertheless be anti-social behaviour by anybody’s definition.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

So what is the objection to having harassment in the Bill?

[Lord Faulks]

The objection is that there is a risk that the hurdle will be too high and that the judge will say, “This is extremely anti-social behaviour and I profoundly sympathise with the individual but, looked at under the definition of harassment, it does not go quite that far”. That behaviour could be completely ruinous of an individual’s life, but perhaps not have that quasi-criminal description that the substitute definition has.

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)]

Would “distress” not cover that?

[Lord Faulks]

The greater test will always include the lesser, but areas that may or may not be considered by a court to get over that hurdle may be profoundly distressing in the non-technical sense to the individual but may not be regarded as sufficiently distressing to come within the definition. There is inevitably a degree of vagueness about any definition, whether you choose the one that the Government choose or the one proposed in the amendment. But I fear that the test is too low.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)]

Could my noble friend deal with a major objection? An order can be obtained on hearsay evidence, so the judge does not have to hear from somebody who says, “I’ve been distressed or annoyed”; it would be sufficient for someone to say, “I’ve heard someone else describe himself as annoyed because of the behaviour in question”.

[Lord Faulks]

The question of hearsay evidence is important, and I am glad that my noble friend raised it. One difficulty about the orders is that individuals are often terrified of those who are responsible for the anti-social behaviour. They are terrified of being identified as the source of the complaint. If they have to give evidence, they will not want to do so. They therefore provide their perfectly bona fide complaint to an agency. Hard-pressed agencies will have to assess whether this is de minimis or of sufficient gravity before deciding whether to proceed.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

Is my noble friend saying that the procedure can be based on an anonymous complaint?

[Lord Faulks]

It can be on the basis of an anonymous complaint, though a judge will need to be satisfied of its substantiality. There are individuals who simply would not seek an injunction if they thought that they could be clearly identified as the source of the procedure. Of course, judges are used to weighing up hearsay evidence, which has less weight than direct evidence. A judge is unlikely to make an order if they think that it is double-hearsay or comes from an unreliable source.

Before making an order, a judge also has to decide that it is proportionate and necessary, in accordance with the Human Rights Act. As I submitted, it is no light thing for the agencies to assemble the evidence necessary to satisfy a judge. The Law Society has carefully considered the arguments against Clause 1. Although more than happy to criticise government legislation—and even this Bill, in some respects—it remains absolutely firm in its support of the existence of the power described in Clause 1, fearing otherwise that the hurdle would be too high and that the power to prevent anti-social behaviour would be damaged.

[Lord Greaves (LD)]

My Lords, I am anxious to support the Government on Clause 1, because there is a great deal to be said for the replacement of ASBOs by IPNAs. However, the noble Lord seems to be arguing that the existing test for ASBOs—harassment et cetera—is too high. Is he arguing that, at the moment, people cannot get ASBOs because the test is too high and therefore that it must therefore be reduced for the new IPNAs? In my experience, the problem with ASBOs is that they are very often given for inappropriate things.

[Lord Faulks]

It is a marginally lower hurdle, but as I understand it—and the Minister will confirm—the choice of words was not an arbitrary matter but the result of a very wide consultation among the professionals concerned in order to reach a test that was sufficient to establish gravity but not so high that the scourge of anti-social behaviour could not be prevented.

In its briefing on this part of the Bill, the Law Society made the point that if injunctions are used in the case of noise nuisance, as an alternative to possession proceedings, they can result in the person or family staying in their home but with restrictions on their conduct, rather than the much more drastic step of eviction. Although an IPNA can be obtained on the balance of probabilities, with or without the amendment, the criminal standard must be satisfied before any breach can be established: that is, beyond reasonable doubt. I respectfully suggest that this provides an extra safeguard, so that this will not result in people being deprived of their liberty inappropriately.

I am also concerned about how coherent Amendment 1 is. It requires “harassment, alarm or distress”—a quasi-criminal test—with the exception, which was not in the original amendment in Committee, of a housing provider or local authority in a similar housing management position. In the case of social housing, the hurdle to be surmounted appears to be lower, so there is a two-tier test for anti-social behaviour, depending on whether you are a private tenant or are in social housing, where an injunction is much more easily obtained. That is hardly a satisfactory distinction, and I wonder how enthusiastic the party is about such a classification.

I do not know, of course, how the party opposite—or at least its Front Bench—regards this amendment. It will be borne in mind that MPs on all sides in the House of Commons were at pains to stress what a scourge anti-social behaviour is to their constituents, and that there ought to be substantial and sensible powers to prevent it. Indeed, the shadow Home Secretary said generally of the powers in the Bill that she thought they were too weak.

We are all passionately in favour of freedom of speech, freedom of association—

[Lord Elton (Con)]

Will my noble friend forgive me? He has just said that he cannot understand why there should be a lower test in social housing. Surely the answer is that if you are in social housing you cannot move out of the way, people are free to do what they like to you and you are trapped. Therefore, a lower standard of unsociability has a much greater effect on the person affected. It is exactly the right proportion.

[Lord Faulks]

Of course I entirely accept the noble Lord’s point that those in social housing may not have options and therefore certainly need the protection at a lower level. My point was that it is rather inelegant to have a different test where there might theoretically be greater room for manoeuvre if there is a private tenant. The test ought to be the same.

I was repeating the fact that I sympathise with all those who have spoken in favour of the various freedoms that we value so much in this country. If we vote in favour of the amendment—if it is put to a vote—we will of course be able to congratulate ourselves and say that we have acted in the finest traditions of freedom. I will have the good fortune of going back to my house where, at least at the moment, there is no great history of anti-social behaviour in the area. Other noble Lords will perhaps be in a similar position. But let us not forget those who are in less fortunate circumstances, who do not have room for manoeuvre and whose lives are made totally miserable by this anti-social behaviour. I fear that if we accede to this argument, we will fail to take them sufficiently into consideration and will make bad law.

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, we have just heard an interesting speech from my noble friend Lord Faulks. I am sure that I speak for every Member of your Lordships’ House in congratulating him on his forthcoming move to the Front Bench—because, as we all know, he is to be Minister very soon. It is therefore hardly surprising that he should have spoken with such passion in support of the Bill.

[Lord Faulks]

I am grateful to my noble friend for his kind congratulations, but I should say that I spoke on this issue in Committee before I was appointed, to very much the same effect.

[Lord Cormack]

One is tempted to call that “cause and effect”, but I will not.

This noble House concluded its contentious business somewhat earlier than we had expected last night. I went home and turned on BBC Four, on which there was a most remarkable programme on the Salvation Army in which various officers made some extremely sincere but perhaps contentious statements. One gentleman in particular made the point that anyone who did not believe in Jesus Christ, as many of us do, was in fact condemned to eternal damnation. Imagine that being said on a street corner or anywhere else. Do we really want to deny people with sincere and genuine beliefs the opportunity of expressing them? I have always felt—although I did not agree with many of the things ascribed to him—that Voltaire had it right when he said, “I detest what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”. That really should be implicit in all our legislation.

I find it somewhat difficult to accept that a Conservative Government or—let me correct myself—a Conservative-led Government are prepared to introduce this lower threshold in the Bill. Although my noble friend Lord Faulks said that it was different from the debate that we had on insulting a little over a year ago, and of course in some senses it is, nevertheless it is similar. It is also very different from what was implicit in the Defamation Act that came into force just a week ago today, whereby we introduced legislation—quite rightly, in my view—that makes it more difficult to engage in frivolous and vexatious complaining.

In this particular provision, in this clause of the Bill —much of which I approve of—we are seeking to lower a threshold and in the process place many people in possible danger of having their civil liberties, including their right to speak as they would, taken away from them. Of course I accept, as my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern accepts, that it is right that social housing should be treated differently—of course it is. In his intervention a few moments ago, my noble friend Lord Elton put that point succinctly and correctly.