UK Liberty

On the growth of civil orders to prevent crime and the Serious Crime Bill

Posted in control orders, politicians on liberty, Serious Crimes Bill by ukliberty on February 14, 2007

The House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution published a report on 24 January 2007 on the Serious Crime Bill as it relates to our constitution.

Of particular interest is the background it gives to the growing use of civil orders to prevent crime – and how far we have come since A V Dicey, a jurist and highly influential constitutional theorist, wrote in 1914 that:

The right to personal liberty as understood in England means in substance a person’s right not to be subjected to imprisonment, arrest, or other physical coercion in any manner that does not admit of legal justification.

That anybody should suffer physical restraint is in England prima facie illegal and can be justified (speaking in very general terms) on two grounds only, that is to say, either because the prisoner or person suffering restraint is accused of some offence and must be brought before the courts to stand his trial, or because he has been duly convicted of some offence and must suffer punishment for it.

As the Committee said (my emphasis italicised),

Over the past 20 years, public policy has increasingly reflected the view that criminal prosecutions and sentences alone may be an inadequate legal response to criminal and other unacceptable behaviour.

The statute book now contains a growing number of examples of a different model: powers enabling individuals or public authorities to seek civil orders from a variety of courts to prohibit undesirable behaviour, backed by criminal sanctions if the subject of the order breaches the order.

And as civil orders are rather easier to obtain than criminal sanctions, being subject to a lesser burden of proof – a ‘balance of probability’, rather than ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ – it is no wonder they are attractive to legislators.

So without further ado, here are the examples the Committee gives of these “inroads into personal liberty”:

  • The Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 created a civil remedy of disqualification, which enabled the court to prohibit a person from acting as a director; breach of such an order is subject to criminal sanction.
  • Part 5 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 created a power for police to request that a local authority make an order to prohibit trespassory assemblies which could result in serious disruption of the life of a community or cause damage; breach of an order made under these provisions may result in criminal prosecution.
  • Part 4 of the Family Law Act 1996 conferred powers to make residence orders (requiring a defendant to leave a dwelling house) and non-molestation orders (requiring a defendant to abstain from threatening an associated person); criminal sanctions are available for disobedience to these orders.
  • The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 created a criminal offence of harassment (section 1), but section 3 also created a civil remedy, enabling individuals to apply for an injunction in the High Court or a county court to restrain another person from pursuing conduct which amounts to harassment, and breach of such an order was made a criminal offence.
  • The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 created anti-social behaviour orders (ASBOs); local authorities were empowered to seek orders from the magistrates’ court where a person acted “in a manner that caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress” (section 1). The Act also created sex offender orders; a chief officer of police was given power to seek such an order where a person is a sex offender and that person acts “in such a way as to give reasonable cause to believe that an order under this section is necessary to protect the public from serious harm from him” (section 2).
  • The Football (Disorder) Act 2000 created “banning orders“, designed to prevent known football hooligans from causing further trouble at home and abroad. Breach is subject to criminal penalty.

In fact there are two types of banning order that can be made: one, on conviction of an offence; two, on a complaint.

The Committee said of Serious Crime Prevention Orders,

We draw to the attention of the House the fact that the far-reaching restrictions of a SCPO may be placed on a person against whom no criminal proceedings have been instituted or who has been convicted of no criminal offence.

Moreover, the restrictions which can be imposed are not limited to conduct forming part of the particular type of crime which has been proved, by civil standards, against the defendant.

ASBOs and other types of control order that now exist on the statute book generally deal with small-scale anti-social behaviour and have little impact on third parties associated with the subject of those orders. SCPOs will have a much wider reach.

A broad question for the House is whether the use of civil orders in an attempt to prevent serious criminal activity is a step too far in the development of preventative orders.

Whether or not the trend towards greater use of preventative civil orders is constitutionally legitimate (a matter on which we express doubt), we take the view that SCPOs represent an incursion into the liberty of the subject and constitute a form of punishment that cannot be justified in the absence of a criminal conviction.


5 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. […] worth looking at my earlier commentary on the Bill, particularly the article entitled “On the growth of civil orders to prevent crime and the Serious Crime Bill“, for some background). Let’s be clear, as Jeremy Browne (Taunton, Liberal Democrat) […]

  2. Jack Straw on liberty « UK Liberty said, on December 18, 2007 at 3:57 pm

    […] are gradually getting rid of fair trials in favour of summary justice and introducing new types of civil orders to prevent […]

  3. […] too much different from some civil orders, whereby the subject can be prohibited from entering particular areas – Labour invented the ASBO. […]

  4. The blame game « UK Liberty said, on March 10, 2008 at 2:23 pm

    […] seems worth mentioning that the Government doesn’t want control orders to be confined to […]

  5. […] Offender Order debate April 24, 2008 Last covered here in January – my article on the growth of using civil orders to prevent crime may also of interest – they were debated in the Lords last night as part of the Criminal Justice […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: