The Crime and Policing Bill has now moved into the House of Lords after moving through the policy process in the House of Commons. Introduced on the 25^th of February 2025 and presented as a method to support the Safer Streets Mission of government, it has gone through the House of Commons after rigorous legislative scrutiny. After passing both the 1^st and 2^nd readings, it then moved to a Public Bill Committee, in which we provided written evidence to the committee. Then, moving on to the report stage, in which amendments were debated. Now, it stands at the House of Lords, having passed the first reading, now standing at the committee stage in the House of Lords.

The Crime and Policing Bill are to be one of the major policy developments to community safety and anti-social behaviour since the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. We have tracked the progress of the Crime and Policing Bill for some time now and have provided commentary and analysis on some of the measures. You can view one of our pieces on the bill here. The bill has a large, broad scope, which aims to achieve a plethora of policy objectives. The bill’s main objectives are as below:

• Respect orders- allowing local authorities and police to impose restrictions on people who commit anti-social behaviour, and which would include a criminal sanction on breach. Other measures will amend existing powers under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, including removing the need for the police to issue a warning before seizing vehicles associated with anti-social behaviour.
• Knife Crime - would introduce a new offence of possessing a knife or offensive weapon with intent, increase the maximum penalty for manufacturing, selling, hiring, or lending prohibited weapons, and give the police greater powers to seize knives from properties.
• Cuckooing - would include measures aimed at protecting children and vulnerable people, including creating new offences of child criminal exploitation and ‘cuckooing’, often associated with county lines drug dealing.
• Child sexual abuse - introduce several measures aimed at tackling child sexual abuse and other sexual offending. This includes implementing two recommendations from the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. It would make grooming a statutory aggravating factor when sentencing an adult for a child sex offence and create a statutory duty for certain individuals to report child sexual abuse.
• Protests - would reintroduce some of the previous government’s proposals to create new offences related to protests, such as banning face coverings, pyrotechnics, and climbing war memorials.
• Stolen goods and drugs - includes measures to allow the police to enter premises without a warrant to search for electronically tracked stolen goods and conduct drug tests in custody for a wider range of offences and drugs.
• Complaints to the police - would reform certain arrangements for the handling of complaints and conduct matters against the police, in the context of concerns about both complainants and the rights of officers under investigation. These measures were first proposed by the previous government as amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill.
• Youth radicalisation - would introduce measures aimed at tackling youth radicalisation, announced as the initial response to the ‘counter-extremism sprint’established by the government following the general election.
• Protect retail workers – introducing a new offence of assault a retail worker. Repeals section 176 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, which downgraded the police response to so-called ‘low-value shop theft’.
• Protect emergency workers – new offences to protect emergency workers from racially or religiously aggravated behaviour.

The House of Lords and the Crime and Policing Bill

The House of Lords Committee stage began on the 10^th of November, and has 12 days of committee scheduled, which are as follows:

• Monday 10 November
• Monday 17 November
• Wednesday 19 November
• Thursday 27 November
• Tuesday 9 December
• Monday 15 December
• Wednesday 17 December
• Tuesday 13 January
• Thursday 15 January
• Tuesday 20 January
• Thursday 22 January
• Tuesday 27 January*

The Committee stage of the policy process in parliament is a thorough examination of individual clauses and amendments of the bill. Members work through the clauses in order, considering changes (amendments) to the wording or proposals for new clauses. While not the same as the commons, in which calls for evidence are analysed through public bill committees, the house of lords represents an opportunity for our sector to engage meaningfully with some of the changes and proposals being put forward. The main difference between the two chambers, is that the Lords committee stage is an open, unlimited discussion. The commons on the other hand, is a fairly restrictive process conducted by a small committee. The Lords do not select amendments and can spend as long as needed debating. A committee stage in the house of lords is ultimately a detailed line-by-line scrutiny of the text with amendments (suggested changes). Members start at the front of the bill and work through to the end. Votes may take place to decide whether to make the changes. Any member may take part and there is no time limit.

The Lords have made a variety of comments and amendments on the crime and policing bill at this stage, and there have been a variety of developments introduced. This includes the revelation that the respect order pilot scheme, will now no longer be introduced. The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) noted in response to Baroness, Lady Doocey that there ‘will not be a pilot on this’ in response to the questions on respect orders. This is as, the ‘Home Office has regularly engaged with front-line practitioners and with the ASB sector to better understand how the powers of the 2014 Act are used and where improvements can be made.’ It was also noted that, in addition, under the ‘last government the department launched a public consultation in 2023 to understand how powers could be used more consistently and effectively.’. This consultation was noted has helping inform the measures in Part 1 of the Bill’.

We know that members were interested in this pilot scheme, and this may come as a disappointment to some, it is clear the government wishes to expedite the process by which respect orders are introduced and carried out, and so we will likely see a quicker introduction of this headline power. It is therefore imperative to highlight the amendments proposed at this stage of the parliamentary process, and what our position is on some of the proposed changes and accompanying concerns with the introduction of respect orders.

Amendments 4 – Legal Test and Inclusion of ‘threatening to engage’ ASB

Amongst the criticism landed at the government, was the inclusion of ‘threatening to engage’ in behaviour causing harassment, alarm or distress as part of the Respect Order legal test. Amendments 4, and 5, which were in the name of noble Baroness and Lady Doocey, would amend the legal test proposed for issuing a respect order. Amendment 4, for example, would mean that a respect order could be issued only in relation to ASB that a respondent had already engaged in, and not where the respondent had threatened to engage in this behaviour, as is the case with existing civil injunctions. The governments position, as articulated by Lord Hanson of Flint, is that it is crucial that ‘we retain the ability to issue an order against those threatening to engage in ASB’ this in order to prevent harm before it happens.

We support the inclusion of “threatening to engage” in behaviour causing harassment, alarm or distress as part of the Respect Order legal test.

This mirrors the existing test for Civil Injunctions under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, ensuring consistency across ASB enforcement powers. The ability to act where an individual is threatening to engage in ASB allows for preventative intervention before harm occurs.

The advantages to are that it enables early and proportionate intervention, maintains consistency with existing ASB powers and allows agencies to address risk-based scenarios where direct proof is limited.

There are, as is with any inclusion, considerations to consider. Thes include that proportionality must remain central, and that agencies should maintain robust case recording and review processes.

Position: The inclusion of “threatening to engage” is important, necessary, and proportionate, reflecting a preventative approach consistent with Civil Injunctions.

Amendment 5: Legal Threshold – “Just and Convenient” vs “Necessary and Proportionate”

Amendment 5, proposed by noble Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, would seek to change the legal test for issuing a respect order, so that the court would need to find it “necessary and proportionate” to issue the order to prevent the respondent engaging in anti-social behaviour, in which the court must find it “just and convenient” This would replace “just and convenient” with “necessary and proportionate”, this was argued by the Lords as so it would be imposed strictly with the principles of the Human Rights Act 1998.

We support retaining the “just and convenient” legal test for granting Respect Orders. The “just and convenient” test remains fit for purpose, proportionate, and effective for enabling timely protection.

This threshold aligns with Civil Injunctions and Criminal Behaviour Orders, ensuring a coherent and predictable legal framework. The existing test provides sufficient judicial discretion to assess proportionality on a case-by-case basis while avoiding unnecessary barriers to protective action.

The concerns with “Necessary and Proportionate” legal test are that it creates inconsistency between ASB tools, introduces subjectivity which could weaken application, and increases delays and evidential burdens. We know how important it is to address ASB quickly and effectively to prevent further harm, and by weakening powers in this way we risk the ineffective enforcement of the power, and therefore we will risk blunting the respect order.

We heard from our members that ‘Necessary and proportionate’ is far too stringent a test and will lead to applications being tied up in legal challenges that will take up a disproportionate amount of time and increase cost to the public purse to a level that will make them simply too expensive to consider.

The orders are designed to simple place clear boundaries for the defendant to continue to go about their daily business while also placing provision to protect the wider community where significant issues have been caused.

The defendant still can appeal based on the claim being disproportionate or interfering with any protected characteristic or human rights.

The test is of course proportionate in say a decision on an asylum application on deciding matters that directly remove someone from the country or where a custodial sentence is being considered.

The spirit of the Respect Order is to be a measure that can be obtained promptly to achieve their goal of prevention of further ASB.

Where an alleged breach occurs, the evidential burden the claimant must be at the criminal standard of proof. This much high test is proportionate given the implication of criminal sanction such as a custodial sentence.

Amendment 7 -  Duration of Respect Orders

Amendment 7 seeks to specify a maximum length of time for a respect order. This, as worded by Lord Clement-Jones challenging the Bill’s proposals that a ‘respect order can be imposed for an indefinity period’. This amendment proposed a maximum duration, such as two years. The governments response was that ‘the duration of a respect order is dependent on the specific circumstances of each case’ and ‘that will be determined by the courts’, anticipating that they do not expect ‘that every respect order will be imposed for an indefinite period’. The government stated that this option should be open in the circumstance of ‘relentless ASB perpetrators.

We recommend that courts retain discretion to determine the duration of Respect Orders, including the option for unlimited periods were justified. Courts should retain the ability to impose orders of appropriate length, including indefinite terms where necessary. This aligns with Civil Injunctions, allowing courts to tailor orders based on individual circumstances and risk.

There are some similarities of the Respect Order and the previous ASBO, in that there were many instances of life-long ASBOs, however we believe that the court should have discretion and that we believe that with the legal tests present, that it is extremely unlikely for many Respect Orders to be issued indefinitely unless in the most extreme examples, where this could be effective.

Judicial discretion allows courts to respond proportionately to risk, this counters the argument of a lack of proportionality or respect orders built into the system. It also reduces the administrative burden of the criminal justice system, and avoids safeguarding gaps caused by expiry,

Amendment 15 - Ex Parte (Without Notice) Applications

Amendment 15 seeks to ensure that the interim respect orders are not issued by the courts unless specifically said otherwise, and where an application has been made without notice. The government noted that ‘anti-social behaviour can escalate quickly and cause great harm, and an interim respect order enables rapid protection in urgent cases involving immediate risk.’

We recommend that Respect Orders inuclude provision for ex parte applications, mirroring Civil Injunction powers. Ex parte provisions are vital for responsiveness and community safety, ensuring swift and proportionate intervention consistent with Civil Injunction practice.

Ex parte injunctions enable rapid protection in urgent cases involving immediate risk. They ensure swift judicial intervention while safeguarding due process through a subsequent full hearing.

Conclusion

It is encouraging that the crime and policing bill continues to receive scrutiny and debate, and that so many policymakers are interested in protecting the public and amending vital pieces of legislation. We, however, recognise that while no provision can be understood as perfect and omnipotent, that the provisions included within the respect orders strike a balance between effective application and proportionality. We in summary, argue against the above proposed amendments, and agree with the government’s position that:

• 
  current wording of Legal Test to enable preventative action
• 
  Maintain existing threshold of legal threshold
• 
  Retain judicial discretion of duration of respect orders (unlimited permitted)
• 
  Ex parte applications Include provision for urgent applications

Overall, we strongly support aligning Respect Orders closely with Civil Injunctions in both legal test and application. These measures strike a balanced and proportionate approach — ensuring consistency, fairness, and flexibility while enabling agencies to act swiftly and effectively to protect communities from escalating antisocial behaviour. We will continue to monitor the Crime and Policing bill at this important stage of the policy process, and we encourage members to get in touch on any of the amendments proposed, or to stay attuned to when we next publish policy pieces on the following sitting days of the committee.

To get in touch, please contact:

Harrison Box, Policy Officer

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.