Tim Lawson-Cruttenden questions the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime & Policing Bill
Parliament is proposing to introduce statutory injunctions to curtail “anti-social behaviour” under Pt I of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill (Pt I). The provisions set out in Pt I are flawed and are either illogical or lack jurisprudential merit.
Statutory injunctions
Civil injunctions arise partly in statute and partly in common law. The present law of civil injunctions is settled (see basic checklist). Why is it necessary to create a new statutory framework under Pt I? Does Parliament consider that the present law of civil injunctions is inadequate? More ominously, does it intend to create a sub-category of civil injunctions which only relate to “nuisance and annoyance” as set out in Pt I?
If so, Parliament should explain why the present law of civil injunctions is inadequate and why Pt I is needed. This article is intended to point out what appears to be new and which is far from satisfactory.
Cause of action
The cause of action is expressed
-maryam-naaz-theo-corbett-and-rachel-carter-with-(front-from-left)-arya-vindlacheruvu-and-jessica-ashcroft.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=47f89300_1)
