Call to scrap proposed ground for possession for riot-related ABS

A clause in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill that creates a new discretionary ground of possession for riot-related anti-social behaviour should be deleted, MPs and peers have said.

As currently drafted, the clause would enable landlords to evict tenants who had been convicted of a riot-related offence committed anywhere in the UK.

In a second report on the Bill, the Joint Committee on Human Rights said: “In our view it is the job of the criminal law, not the civil law, to deter riot-related offences and to administer sanctions when such offences are committed.

“Nor do we consider the existence of judicial discretion to be a satisfactory answer to our concern about the disproportionate impact of eviction on other members of the household who have not engaged in such behaviour.”

In its first report the committee had also said it considered that the definition of 'anti-social behaviour' in the Bill's provisions relating to the new civil injunction to prevent nuisance and annoyance ("IPNAs") was too broad and unclear.

It recommended that the test be amended to make it more precise, by inserting an objective requirement that the conduct ‘might reasonably be regarded as’ causing nuisance or annoyance.

In this respect the JCHR's second report said it welcomed the Government's indication that IPNAs should not be used to stop reasonable, trivial or benign behaviours. However, the committee warned that this intention was not so far reflected in the wording of the Bill.

“We therefore maintain our recommendation that the Bill be amended to introduce an objective element into the definition of anti-social behaviour in Part 1 of the Bill, by inserting a requirement that the conduct in question ‘might reasonably be regarded as’ causing nuisance or annoyance,” the committee said.

The JCHR also invited the Government to reconsider whether it was necessary to expressly provide that prohibitions and requirements in an IPNA and a Criminal Behaviour Order ("CBO") must, 'so far as practicable', avoid any conflict with religious belief.

It said ministers had not so far explained why singling out religious belief for special protection in these provisions was necessary.

“In the absence of such an explanation, we consider that the existing protections for religious beliefs in sections 6(1) and 13 of the Human Rights Act should be sufficient, and we therefore invite the Government to consider whether any legal protection for religious freedom would be lost by accepting our original recommendation that the two provisions in question be deleted from the Bill,” the committee argued.

“However, if the Government remains of the view that these provisions are required, notwithstanding the protection provided by the Human Rights Act, we recommend that the current wording is revised to ensure that the absolute right to religious belief must not be interfered with under any circumstances (rather than ‘so far as practicable’).”

The committee said its other recommendations in its first report concerning some of the anti-social behaviour provisions in the Bill had been given effect by Government amendments.

The JCHR report also called for changes to the Bill’s provisions in relation to the powers available at ports and airports (to detain and to copy data from personal electronic devices), and as regards compensation for miscarriages of justice.

A copy of the report can be viewed here.