Briefings

Crime and Policing Bill Briefing

The Crime and Policing Bill will introduce a swathe of liberty-robbing measures: it will create absurd new crimes, new blank-cheque powers, and out-of-proportion new penalties.

Here is the Manifesto Club’s briefing in advance of the House of Lords Second Reading on 16 October, highlighting some parts of the Bill that are particularly concerning.

Increase in fines for ‘busybody’ offences from £100 to £500 (Clause 4)

Public Spaces Protection Orders (PSPOs) allow local authorities to ban particular activities in a particular area, if they believe that an activity is having a ‘detrimental effect on the quality of life’. Community Protection Notices (CPNs) can be used by police or local authorities to impose particular restrictions upon an individual, if they believe that a person’s behaviour is having a ‘detrimental effect’.

These orders are issued on a low benchmark and have been subject to widespread misuse, including bans on gathering in groups or sleeping in public, and individuals banned from looking at their neighbours or ordered to cut their grass.

On-the-spot penalties for breach of Public Spaces Protection Orders (PSPOs) and Community Protection Notices (CPNs) are currently £100. Clause 4 of the Crime and Policing Bill will increase penalties to £500.

We are opposing this change because it will lead to more innocent people being given even heftier penalties by private enforcement companies, who are paid per fine.

Our FOI research shows that the vast majority of the 19,000 penalties issued for PSPO breach in 2023 were for innocuous actions.

For example, Hillingdon issued most of its PSPO penalties for the offence of ‘idling’ (leaving a car engine running for more than two minutes). The 2335 people punished included a man waiting to pick up his wife from the doctor’s and another man trying to keep cool on a hot day.

Large numbers of penalties are also issued to cyclists, including an 82 year-old cycling through Grimsby town centre. In a 6-month period last year, 1,472 penalties were issued to people cycling in Grimsby, while in Colchester a cyclist was fined for locking his bike to a bikerack. Others fined included busker David Fisher for playing outside a Bruce Springsteen concert, and homeless people fined for begging or ‘loitering’.

PSPO penalties are largely issued by private enforcement companies on commission, which increases the potential for injustice. 75% of PSPO penalties are issued by private enforcement companies who are paid per fine; these companies are responsible for many of the unreasonable fines, including the large number of penalties for idling or for cycling in town centres.

Similarly, the majority of penalties for Community Protection Notice breach are issued for anodyne actions. Of the 1200 penalties issued in the year 2022-3, the vast majority were for ‘messy gardens’. Some people were given CPNs telling them the height to they should prune their shrubs or cut their grass. We are in touch with a pensioner who was fined for feeding the birds.

Summary: Clause 4 will lead to more innocent people being fined by private enforcement companies for everyday actions. We call for Clause 4 to be removed. We also call for an amendment prohibiting 'fining for profit' for all anti-social behaviour penalties.

Respect Orders (Clause 1)

The Bill will introduce ‘Respect Orders’, which will allow local authorities and police to impose restrictions upon particular individuals.

Respect Orders are almost identical to the current Anti-Social Behaviour Injunction (ASBI) power. Like ASBIs, Respect Orders can be issued on application by various state bodies to the High Court or county court, and can impose prohibitions as well as positive requirements. The test for issuing an order is if the court is satisfied (on the balance of probabilities) that a person has engaged in, or threatens to engage in, anti-social behaviour (with anti-social behaviour defined as ‘behaviour that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person’). The injunction can be applied for ‘without notice’, which means that the recipient will not be informed of the application or be present at proceedings.

Our research on ASBIs (written by University of York academics) shows that these powers have been subject to widespread overuse, including cases of people being imprisoned for feeding the birds, going into a prohibited area, sleeping rough, or in one case merely for asking for 50p. The majority of defendants were not represented in the breach hearing that led to their prison sentence. Recently, a homeless woman was sentenced to 18 months in prison, for attempting to sleep in Peterborough YMCA.

The main difference between ASBIs and Respect Orders is that violation of a Respect Order is a criminal offence that can lead to imprisonment for a period up to two years, or a fine, or both. Breach of the ASBI is not a crime; however, breach is considered as Contempt of Court, which can also lead to imprisonment for a period up to two years. It is our view that Respect Orders will reproduce – and increase – the existing problems with ASBIs.

It must be noted that Respect Orders do not replace the current ASBI in housing contexts, which are issued on the lower standard of conduct capable of causing ‘nuisance or annoyance to any person’. These housing-related injunctions account for a significant portion of imprisonments for ASBI breach, and are mainly applied for by housing authorities.

We support many of JUSTICE’s list of suggested amendments to the Respect Order. Overall, we call for –

  • There should be no power of imprisonment for breach of Respect Orders or ASBIs;
  • Every person subject to a Respect Order application should have adequate legal representation;
  • No Respect Orders should be available ‘without notice’ (without the person being told that the order is being made against them);
  • No Respect Order should be obtained on the basis of someone ‘threatening to engage’ in behaviour, rather than their actual behaviour;
  • Respect Orders should be issued on a criminal rather than civil standard of proof (‘beyond reasonable doubt’, rather than ‘balance of probabilities’);
  • There should be no powers to ban someone from accessing their home;
  • Orders in housing contexts should not be issued on the lower standard of ‘nuisance and annoyance’.
Summary: Clause 1 will lead to more people being imprisoned for anodyne actions, such as begging, sleeping rough, or feeding the birds. These orders - and penalties - will fall particularly upon groups such as the homeless/travellers. We call for the removal or significant amendment of the Respect Order.

Extension of dispersal and closure notices (Clauses 3 and 5)

Dispersal notices allow police officers to bar a person from a defined area for 48 hours, if the officer suspects that their behaviour ‘is likely to contribute to’ members of the public being harassed, alarmed or distressed. Closure notices allow police and local authorities to prohibit access to a premises for 48 hours, if they believe that nuisance or disorder are likely to be associated with the premises.

Dispersal notices are often used unjustly, including against political protesters, people giving out food for the homeless, and football supporters who had pulled up by the side of the road on the way to a match.

Clause 3 of the Crime and Policing Bill will extend the length of dispersal and closure notices, from 48 to 72 hours.

Clause 5 will also allow social housing providers to use closure powers. This will increase the role of housing authorities as pseudo-policing bodies with coercive powers over their residents – a role for which they are unsuited, and which undermines their relations with residents.

Summary: Dispersal and closure notices are already subject to misuse and abuse; clauses 3 and 5 will increase the problems with these powers, by allowing them to be issued for longer and by more authorities. We call for clauses 3 and 5 to be removed.