Source · Select Committees · Human Rights (Joint Committee)
Recommendation 157
157
Acknowledged
The Bill provides power to impose electronic monitoring as a requirement of a Serious Crime...
Conclusion
The Bill provides power to impose electronic monitoring as a requirement of a Serious Crime Prevention Order (SCPO). It also provides for the power to impose interim SCPOs whilst an application for a final order is pending. SCPOs, introduced by the Serious Crime Act 2007, are civil preventative orders that can impose tailored prohibitions, restrictions and requirements on a person for a period of up to five years to prevent or disrupt their involvement in serious crime. SCPOs may be imposed where a court is satisfied that a person has been involved in serious crime, and it has reasonable grounds to believe that the order would protect the public by preventing, restricting or disrupting involvement by the person in serious crime. There is an indicative list of ‘serious offences’ in Schedule 1 to the 2007 Act for which an SCPO can be applied. Serious offences include fraud, money laundering, terrorism, drug and people trafficking. Examples of measures that can be included in an SCPO are also set out in the 2007 Act, they include restrictions on movement, association with others, phone and social media usage and finances.
Government Response Summary
The government clarified that electronic monitoring in Serious Crime Prevention Orders is for monitoring compliance, not punishment. It reiterated that courts apply the 'appropriate' test compatibly with the ECHR, considering all facts and safeguards like judicial scrutiny and data protection.
Government Response
Acknowledged
HM Government
Acknowledged
It is important to clarify that the imposition of electronic monitoring as part of a Serious Crime Prevention Order (SCPO) is not intended as a standalone punitive measure, rather as a means of monitoring compliance with other conditions of the order. Although the Bill uses the term “appropriate” as the test for imposing requirements such as electronic monitoring, courts are still required to interpret and apply that test in a way that is compatible with the ECHR, as required by the Human Rights Act 1998. Under the Serious Crime Act 2007, SCPOs can include any requirements which the court considers appropriate for the purpose of protecting the public by preventing, restricting, or disrupting involvement in serious crime. It will be for the court to determine whether electronic monitoring is an appropriate condition in each individual case, taking into account all relevant facts. All necessary safeguards, such as judicial scrutiny, a Data Protection Impact Assessment, and the ability of the individual to seek variation or discharge, will ensure that the use of electronic monitoring complies with Convention rights. With regard to Interim SCPOs (ISCPOs), the Bill provides that the High Court may impose an ISCPO where it considers it “just to do so.” This standard enables the court to act swiftly in circumstances where there is a credible risk to the public, but the final SCPO application has not yet been determined. The court will assess the material presented and make an evaluative judgment, rather than applying an evidential test or standard of proof. Introducing a stricter threshold, such as one based solely on necessity, could delay vital interventions and risk allowing serious criminal activity to continue unchecked. The “just to do so” test reflects the urgent, preventive nature of interim orders and aligns with comparable regimes such as interim sexual risk orders and interim slavery and trafficking risk orders. These measures are strictly temporary and subject to review. If an individual considers the imposition of an ISCPO to be unjustified or disproportionate, they may apply for the order to be varied or discharged and have a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal, ensuring an appropriate balance between public protection and individual rights.