5th Report - Legislative Scrutiny: Crime and Policing Bill

The government rejected the recommendation to keep the test and standard of proof for Respect Orders under careful review, stating it is already satisfied the procedure is ECHR compliant and strikes the right balance due to existing safeguards and judicial oversight.

The government does not commit to an urgent review of Community Protection Notices and Public Spaces Protection Orders, stating it is satisfied that existing provisions strike the right balance in tackling anti-social behaviour.

The government rejects the recommendation, stating it does not consider it necessary or appropriate to define 'protest' or remove the protest requirement, as this would broaden the designation remit beyond its policy rationale.

The government rejected the proposed Bill amendments, arguing that the designation power is already constrained by the likelihood of "commission of offences" and existing legislation provides a defence for health, religious, or work-related reasons. They committed to issuing operational guidance to reinforce the need for officers to consider context.

The government rejects the recommendation to change the threshold from 'may intimidate' to 'would intimidate', stating that 'may intimidate' is appropriate and proportionate and that raising the threshold could unduly limit police ability to respond to risks.

The government rejected the use of criminal sanctions for failure to report child sexual abuse, opting instead for referral to DBS and professional regulators, and stated that a new criminal offence will target those who prevent reports. It also stated that the Bill ensures consequences do not solely depend on employer referrals, and committed to reviewing the duty's effectiveness "in due course."

The government rejected the recommendation to remove barriers to universal jurisdiction and amend the Bill, stating that its current approach focuses on specific crimes, supports prosecution closest to perpetration, and relies on the International Criminal Court for broader cases.

The government rejects concerns regarding the procedural fairness of Respect Orders, asserting that the process is ECHR compliant due to existing safeguards, judicial oversight, and the preventative nature of the orders.

The government rejects the concerns about Respect Order compliance with Article 6 ECHR, stating it is satisfied with existing safeguards that balance protecting rights and tackling anti-social behaviour.

The government rejected the implied recommendation to define "protest," stating it is unnecessary and unhelpful to depart from existing legislation, as the ordinary meaning is clear and its application will be decided by police and courts proportionately.

The government acknowledges the right to peaceful protest but defends the new measures against face coverings, stating they are necessary to address the use of masks to evade criminal responsibility during disorderly protests and will be exercised proportionately.

The government rejects the concern that current consequences for failing to report child sexual abuse are insufficient, explaining that applying criminal sanctions could create a negative culture and instead highlights referrals to the DBS and professional regulators as effective measures.