Anti Social Behaviour Bill in the Queen's Speech

[Hopman]

There are possible unintended consequences of the Antisocial Behaviour Bill which was included in the recent Queen’s speech, and which has been the subject of public consultation over the last year.

 

This Bill is well meaning, as it seems to be aimed at genuinely antisocial behaviour and equips the Police and Courts to deal with it. However, the drafting of the Bill is extremely slack, and my main worry is over Section 1, which defines ‘Antisocial Behaviour’ thus: … conduct, capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any

person (“antisocial behaviour”).

 

This ‘definition’ is no definition at all, as any kind of behaviour is capable of causing

nuisance or annoyance to someone. A minority of the population follow a faith where the word of the prophet instructs them to kill black dogs. They may well take exception to a man walking a dog along their street. When I was last on Fargate the sounds of a busking trio could be heard. Some may have found their playing annoying. A lady standing at a bus stop covered her ears to try and block out the loud, distorted chimes of a nearby ice cream van. Others might be annoyed by the shouts of spectators watching a local Sunday League football match.

 

Unless a more robust definition is used, I can see this legislation becoming used inappropriately to try to control others’ freedom. It also plays in to the hands of authoritarian police officers, as it gives them virtually unfettered powers to ban behaviour or exclude people from areas, without prior Court sanction, if they decide that whatever is happening is ‘capable of causing nuisance or annoying any person’. ‘Capable’, in their opinion of course.

 

This Bill is really aimed at the yobbish behaviour and neighbourhood terrorisation which we all recognise as genuinely Antisocial Behaviour. It should say so, so that The Law is known. As drafted it could mean anything, and what the Law is in this respect can not be known, and will be interpreted differently by every court, according to the personal views of every magistrate.

Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights says there must be no punishment without Law. If the law is not known, and yet there is punishment, this Act would be a direct breach of that Convention, to which the UK is a signatory.

 

It is unfortunate that much of the publicity generated by the Queen's Speech has ben regarding the EU and gay marriage, yet something which could land anyone with a criminal record is pushed through under the radar.

 

I've written to my MP about this and if you are alarmed at this erosion of our liberties, I would urge you to do likewise.

[Rupert_Baehr]

That's why there are courts.

 

[The Queen in] Parliament is the Sovereign lawmaker, but let's face it, most Parliamentarians couldn't write a shopping list without making mistakes.

 

Parliament passes incompetent poorly-thought out laws and the judges in the Court of Appeal and the HOL 'interpret' them.

 

How long do you think it will be before the Judges tell Parliament what they really meant to write?

 

It'll probably happen long before your MP gets back from his 26-week hols.

[Mecky]

This Bill is really aimed at the yobbish behaviour and neighbourhood terrorisation which we all recognise as genuinely Antisocial Behaviour.

 

Why would this government want to punish itself with such laws?

[L00b]

Section 1, which defines ‘Antisocial Behaviour’ thus: … conduct, capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any person (“antisocial behaviour”).

 

This ‘definition’ is no definition at all, as any kind of behaviour is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to someone.

It is a (proposed) legal definition for "antisocial behaviour". Your opinion of the definition is your own, overly-broad interpretation of it. Can you appreciate the irony of your OP?

This Bill is really aimed at the yobbish behaviour and neighbourhood terrorisation which we all recognise as genuinely Antisocial Behaviour. It should say so, so that The Law is known.

Say what? "yobbish, conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to someone neighbourhood terrorisation"?

 

It's a good job you don't draft legislation

As drafted it could mean anything, and what the Law is in this respect can not be known, and will be interpreted differently by every court, according to the personal views of every magistrate.

It is the job of Parliament to draft and enact Laws, it is the job of the magistrature to apply it to the facts of a case, and interpret it if needed, resulting in Case Law (I suggest you acquaint yourself with the definition of that expression, it is a centuries-old pillar of the UK legal system, and entirely relevant to the point you raised).

Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights says there must be no punishment without Law. If the law is not known, and yet there is punishment, this Act would be a direct breach of that Convention, to which the UK is a signatory.

There is (well, will be) a Law, which will be known as and when it will be enacted, according to or slightly reworded from what you quoted in your OP So let's keep that ECHR monster in its box, please.

 

I'd tell you exactly what your MP is going to reply to you to save you some time, but I don't want to spoil the surprise

[Hopman]

When the ASBO first was introduced Liberty expressed the fear that non criminal behaviour could result in the order being served on someone. Breach of this order would be a criminal offence.

In effect someone could get a criminal record after non criminal activity.

 

As the above poster has said

It is the job of Parliament to draft and enact Laws, it is the job of the magistrature to apply it to the facts of a case, and interpret it if needed,

.

That's all very well, but for a case to reach the court and be thrown out can involve considerable expense in legal fees by the accused.

 

The proposed legislation will bring in a bigot's charter.

[L00b]

That's all very well, but for a case to reach the court and be thrown out can involve considerable expense in legal fees by the accused.

And that's one of the reasons why you should the petition posted about by Tess, here.

 

As an aside, you will not ever be able to completely prevent miscarriages of justice. Such instances (where ASBOs are concerned) are thankfully extremely rare (if there's ever been one, never heard of any), and the judicial system of this country, for all the routine vilification of Judges etc., is still one of the fairest and most envied throughout the world.

[Manlinose]

the Bill is just proposed at this stage - it has to go through committee stages as well as be debated in both Houses of Parliament - it will no doubt be amended before becoming law

[TeaFan]

And that's one of the reasons why you should the petition posted about by Tess, here.

 

As an aside, you will not ever be able to completely prevent miscarriages of justice. Such instances (where ASBOs are concerned) are thankfully extremely rare (if there's ever been one, never heard of any), and the judicial system of this country, for all the routine vilification of Judges etc., is still one of the fairest and most envied throughout the world.

 

In the first year of ASBOs, around 30% of them were thought to have been given to people with mental health problems. I'm afraid I don't have a link to that, I read it in a report from MIND I think. Because they were over-used against people who were sometimes behaving in certain ways because of their mental health problem I think that was unjust, as did many others. My understanding is that this was one of the reasons why the use of ASBOs was reduced considerably, because it risked criminalising mental ill-health.

 

The current usual definition of ASB is 'any behaviour that causes nuisance, annoyance or distress to any person', so the new definition is not very new.

[L00b]

Thanks for the added context Teafan, very useful

 

It would tend to vindicate my initial point about this draft legislation, i.e. it is a "good thing": case law developed in respect of ASBOs, which has manifestly evolved into this "current usual definition" for reducing risks of wrongful convictions, forms the basis of the new Act which uses substantially the same definition.

[TeaFan]

Thanks for the added context Teafan, very useful

 

It would tend to vindicate my initial point about this draft legislation, i.e. it is a "good thing": case law developed in respect of ASBOs, which has manifestly evolved into this "current usual definition" for reducing risks of wrongful convictions, forms the basis of the new Act which uses substantially the same definition.

 

I'm not sure that the definition changed, just that ASBOs were found to be over the top in many cases and their use reduced. How difficult or easy it is to get an ASBO differs around the country and depends on the attitude of the local judges. There are still stupid uses of them; one man in Sheffield who is alcohol dependent is barred from entering anywhere alcohol is sold, i.e. he isn't allowed in many shops where food is sold. He keeps ending up in prison almost as soon as he is released, he has essentially been given a life sentence for having an alcohol dependency and it costs the state a fortune. Stupid.

 

I can't say I've seen anything in the proposed legislation that is much different from what happens now, apart from the number of orders being reduced and the system simplified a bit.