While Labour have been out of power for 7 months, sleeping elements of their legislation are still being brought into force by Statutory Instrument under the authority of the Home Office.

Amongst a large raft of SI’s signed recently is this one :

The Policing and Crime Act 2009 (Commencement No. 7) Order 2010

Provisions coming into force on 31st January 2011

2.  The day appointed for the coming into force of Part 4 of the Act (injunctions: gang-related violence) and Schedule 5 to the Act (injunctions: powers to remand) is 31st January 2011.

As is always the case with Statutory Instruments, the actual laws being enacted are only mentioned by reference to the original Acts which makes tracking down exactly what is being brought to life a complete bugger.

In this case,the relevant section is as follows :

Part 4

Injunctions: gang-related violence

Power to grant injunctions

Granted, on first reading that doesn’t seem anythign to be overly concerned about but when the detail is examined this would appear to me to be one piece of legislation that is just waiting to be misused.

Firstly, the tests that the court has to apply (emphasis mine) :

(1)A court may grant an injunction under this section if 2 conditions are met.

(2)The first condition is that the court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the respondent has engaged in, or has encouraged or assisted, gang-related violence.

(3)The second condition is that the court thinks it is necessary to grant the injunction for either or both of the following purposes—

(a)to prevent the respondent from engaging in, or encouraging or assisting, gang-related violence;

(b)to protect the respondent from gang-related violence.

(4)An injunction under this section may (for either or both of those purposes)—

(a)prohibit the respondent from doing anything described in the injunction;

(b)require the respondent to do anything described in the injunction.

Yes, encouraging something is an offence now – will that include speech and written material I wonder?

The definition of gang-related is also drawn rather narrowly :

In this section “gang-related violence” means violence or a threat of violence which occurs in the course of, or is otherwise related to, the activities of a group that—(a)consists of at least 3 people,

(b)uses a name, emblem or colour or has any other characteristic that enables its members to be identified by others as a group, and

(c)is associated with a particular area.

I think you will admit that that can cover just about any group given suitably creative thinking.

What kinds of things can be banned under the injunction?

Well, the law now reaches into such areas as pets, clothing and free assembly :

The prohibitions included in the injunction may, in particular, have the effect of prohibiting the respondent from—(a)being in a particular place;

(b)being with particular persons in a particular place;

(c)being in charge of a particular species of animal in a particular place;

(d)wearing particular descriptions of articles of clothing in a particular place;

(e)using the internet to facilitate or encourage violence.

The best part in these things usually comes last as we find out who can ask for these injunctions :

An application for an injunction under section 34 may be made by—(a)the chief officer of police for a police area,

(b)the chief constable of the British Transport Police Force, or

(c)a local authority.

Yes – local authorties, the same ones that were given RIPA powers to prevent terrorism only to use the to spy on dustbins and dog walkers.

These injunctions (like ASBOs) can be applied for without notice to the people they will apply to and in those cases the court can decide to grant interim injunctions based on the evidence presented if it so desires.

I despair sometimes at the standard of lawmaking in this country.

Not only do we have a herd of sheep, mindlessly following the lead of their party whips, we also have legislation filled with enabling clauses which are triggered after the event to bring in more laws by signature only.

The laws themselves are usually drafted so loosely that the actual extent of the laws needs testing in court leaving ordinary people unsure of what is and isn’t legal whilst allowing all and sundry (in this case local councils) to try their luck in court using tax payers money to fund the cases.

Finally, I am left wondering exactly how many sections of legislation are still lying dormant waiting for the magical SI to bring them to life?