Respect Orders, as laid out in this bill, undermine the principle of innocence until proven guilty and risks imposing punitive measures on individuals who have not committed any wrongdoing. By lowering the threshold to hypothetical future conduct, the burden of proof is diminished, shifting away from proving past wrongdoing and towards an assessment of perceived risk, which is inherently speculative and prone to error. Vague and predictive standards disproportionately affect marginalised and vulnerable groups, who are more likely to be viewed with suspicion and subjected to intrusive policing measures.
Extensive evidence highlights that conditions attached to civil orders are frequently impossible to comply with for reasons beyond the recipient’s control. This creates a situation where individuals subject to these orders are effectively set up to fail, making breach almost inevitable and exposing them to criminal sanctions for conduct that, in itself, would not constitute a criminal offence. This bypasses the procedural and evidential safeguards that apply in the criminal justice system by 'bringing the criminal law into play' in situations where obtaining a criminal conviction would be impossible or extremely difficult due to the fact that the underlying behaviour is not inherently criminal.
No new civil orders should be introduced unless His Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services and the College of Policing demonstrate that existing powers are being used lawfully, fairly and effectively. An evidence-based case needs to show how recently proposed civil orders will be effective in tackling related offences. It also needs to be demonstrated that these powers are necessary and do not replicate existing provisions.
For a full explanation of our position, please download and read our written evidence.