Source · Select Committees · Human Rights (Joint Committee)
Recommendation 164
164
Rejected
ISCPOs could be obtained without notice being given to the subject if the High Court...
Conclusion
ISCPOs could be obtained without notice being given to the subject if the High Court accepts that “the outcome sought by the applicant” (presumably protecting against serious crime) is likely to be prejudiced by notice being given. Where an order is made without notice, the subject of the ISCPO must be given an opportunity to make representations as soon as reasonably practicable. The ISCPO, once made, would not be binding on the subject until they have been given notice of it (which must be done within 7 days). It would also expire at a determined date or at the point when the full SCPO application is determined.
Government Response Summary
The government defends the 'just to do so' threshold for Interim Serious Crime Prevention Orders (ISCPOs), arguing a stricter test could delay vital interventions. It states this standard enables swift action and aligns with comparable regimes, while judicial review and appeal rights ensure a balance between public protection and individual rights.
Government Response
Rejected
HM Government
Rejected
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.