Ban on ‘annoyance’: dream come true or threat to freedom?
Peers have blocked a law that would give police powers to clamp down on any public behaviour deemed potentially “annoying” from busking to peaceful protest.
One person’s “annoying”, can be another person’s “spirited”.
But the government tried to push through a new law which would leave that judgement up to the law – and beware if you fall on the wrong side. Ministers want to introduce an injunction to prevent nuisance and annoyance (Ipna).
Under current legislation, an anti-social behaviour order (Asbo) can be granted if a judge thinks it is “necessary” to stop someone causing, or threatening to cause “harassment, alarm or distress” to someone else. The bar for the Ipna is much lower: one can be granted if a judge believes a person has engaged in – or threatens to engage in – “conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any person.”
The danger in this bill is that it potentially empowers state interference against such activities in the face of shockingly low safeguards – Lord Macdonald QC
The injunction was proposed under clause one of the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill. But a range of campaigners under the banner of the Reform Clause 1 coalition fought the plan, saying it is a threat to free speech. The group includes The Christian Institute, the National Secular Society and the Peter Tatchell Foundation.
They say the bill is too wide ranging, and that criminalising anyone “capable of” causing nuisance or annoyance can be interpreted too widely. Campaigners fear that protest will be threatened by the law, as will everything from religious preaching to busking.
This evening, the government was defeated at the House of Lords. Peers voted by 306 to 178 against the plans, fearing that nosiy children, carol singers and nudists could fall victim to the new injunctions.
Peers backed an amendment to the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill by Lord Dear, a former chief constable, saying the new injunctions put “fundamental freedoms” and free speech at risk.
‘Gross state interference’
A former director of public prosecutions has slammed the home secretary’s proposals as “gross state interference” in people’s private lives and basic freedoms.
Liberal Democrat peer, Lord Macdonald QC, said: “Of course political demonstrations, street performers and corner preachers may be ‘annoying’ to some – they may even, from time to time be a ‘nuisance’.
“The danger in this bill is that it potentially empowers state interference against such activities in the face of shockingly low safeguards and little apparent acknowledgement of the potential effect of its provisions on the ability of citizens to exercise core rights without undue interference.”
He added: “Indeed, the pressing question is whether state interference in the context of behaviour that is merely potentially annoying could ever be justifiable or amount to a proportionate interference in those critical rights to freedom of speech, assembly and religion, or indeed to private life.”
Asbos are now the status quo, after being introduced by Tony Blair in 1998, but they are still considered problematic by some. Critics say they are used to criminalise non-illegal behaviour through the back-door, as breaching the rules of the Asbo is deemed a criminal offence. There has also been criticism of a postcode lottery of sorts, with some police forces appearing to be much happier to use them than others.
In 2010, Theresa May said that she planned to abolish Asbos, in favour of “community-based” social policies.
Here are some of the more controversial Asbo orders*:
– An 87-year-old man who was sarcastic to his neighbours,
– A 15-year-old told that he couldn’t play football in his street,
– A prostitute forbidden from carrying condemns in Manchester,
– A 16-year-old banned from showing his tattoos or wearing a single golf glove,
– A farmer in Norfolk, who was ordered to keep his swine and geese under control.
*Home Affairs Select Committee report: analysis of first six years
‘Simpler, more effective powers’
The government responded to a critical report from the joint committee on human rights, that courts will not interpret “nuisance and annoyance” too widely, arguing that these are commonly understood, and certain, legal terms.
In the fact sheet accompanying the anti-social behaviour, crime and policing bill, the intended purpose of the clause is laid out: “Parts one to six introduce simpler, more effective powers for tackling anti-social behaviour, which provide better protection for victims and communities, act as a real deterrent to perpetrators and give victims a say in the way their complaints are dealt with.”
The House of Lords will debated the bill on Wednesday.