A Government proposal, under which courts could stop people being annoying in public, has been blocked by the House of Lords amid fears that the new injunction, part of the Antisocial Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill, could undermine freedom of speech and association.
Had the Bill gone through, it would have permitted injunctions against anyone aged 10 or older who “has engaged or threatens to engage in conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any person” and would have replaced the current ASBOs (antisocial behaviour orders) with IPNAs (injunctions to prevent nuisance and annoyance).
However, the Bill was defeated by 306 votes to 178 in the Lords, despite ministers offering to hold talks about how the proposed measure could be improved by changing the wording to address the concerns of the breadth of the nuisance or annoyance test.
The Peer who led the opposition, Lord Dear, said that under the proposals, anyone over the age of 10 could be served with an IPNA, which could last for an indefinite period of time and could result in a prison term if breached.
He argued that it could have been used against peaceful protesters, noisy children, street preachers, canvassers, clay pigeon shooters or even carol singers, which showed a lack of tolerance or forbearance.
During the debate, Peers repeatedly quoted Lord Justice Sedley’s ruling in a 1997 case in the High Court, when he said that the freedom to only speak inoffensively is not worth having.
Campaign groups such as Liberty and Justice, and a coalition of ethical groups, such as the Christian Institute and National Secular Society, had also spoken out against the proposal.
Following the defeat, MPs could still seek to reinsert the proposal into the Bill when it returns to the Commons but it will have to be agreed by both Houses of Parliament before being put forward for Royal Assent.