Source · Select Committees · Human Rights (Joint Committee)
Recommendation 165
165
Rejected
The provision is sufficiently clear and accessible.
Conclusion
The provision is sufficiently clear and accessible. The aim of preventing serious crime is legitimate. As to whether it is necessary and proportionate, it is notable that the threshold for imposing an ISCPO is merely that the court considers it “just”. It is arguable that a more rigorous threshold test would ensure that the use of ISCPOs (potentially without notice), and the interference with Article 8 rights involved, is proportionate. Migrant Help raised a concern that “the lack of clarity around the criteria for “just to do so” could lead to overly broad applications of interim orders in situations where they may not be strictly necessary.”204
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.