Crime and Policing Bill may not provide sufficient safeguards against inappropriate use of new respect orders, Parliamentary committee warns

Scrutinising the Crime and Policing Bill in a report published last week (7 July), the committee highlighted the importance of effective safeguards against “disproportionate use” of the law containing powers to tackle ASB.

The report warned: “While [the definition of ASB] may be well-established and understood by some authorities, its breadth and subjectivity allows for inconsistency in its application and risks sweeping up less serious matters along with behaviour that demands a legal response.

“This can disproportionately affect vulnerable groups and result in measures being taken that interfere with human rights to an unjustified extent.”

The Crime and Policing Bill  proposes the introduction of respect orders - civil orders imposed on a person found to have engaged in or threatened ASB which can include almost any prohibition or requirement, the JCHR said. Breach of the respect order will be a criminal offence.

The report observed that respect orders “largely replicate” existing powers to deal with ASB - particularly ASB injunctions, and also have similarities with the “now defunct ASBO” (Anti-Social Behaviour Order).

The committee, whose members are drawn from MPs and peers, noted that a review of existing ASB measures and their efficacy should have been carried out before new measures were introduced, It therefore recommended such a review is carried out now.

The JCHR said: “The key protection against unjustified and disproportionate use of respect orders is the judicial process that must be followed before they can be imposed. However, we have concerns about the overall fairness of that process. This should also be reviewed.”

Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Lord David Alton said: “Taking action to prevent public disorder and anti-social behaviour is crucial to protect the rights of victims and those who wish to protest peacefully.

“The Government is right to prioritise this but must resist setting new powers too broadly and with insufficient safeguards. These powers should only target the specific problems they seek to resolve.”

Also part of the proposed Bill is the introduction of a mandatory duty to report child sexual abuse, a key recommendation of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse.

While describing this as a “welcome and vital step” to protect children, the committee warned that the narrow scope of the duty and the lack of repercussions for failing to comply with it could undermine its effectiveness.

The report noted: “While concerns about making a failure to comply with the duty to report a criminal offence are understandable, the alternative proposed in the Bill risks a failure to comply having little or no consequence.

“[…] The Government must keep under review the efficacy of the mandatory reporting duty once it is in place, with a view to expanding its scope if necessary. The Government should also reconsider the consequence of failing to comply with the duty to report child sexual abuse, so that it operates as an effective deterrent.

“In particular, the Government should ensure the consequence of breach does not depend significantly on referrals being made by employers, managers or personnel providers who may also be under pressure to protect reputation.”

Lord Alton said the committee was concerned that the mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse may need to go further.

“Without repercussions for those who fail to do their duty and report these horrific crimes it may prove ineffective,” he said.

“If it fails to deliver the necessary change, the Government must review its impact and toughen its penalties."

Lottie Winson