CRime and POlicing Bill: Liberty’s Submission to the Joint Committee on Human Rights

Poverty, Protest and Punishment: The Context Behind the Crime and Policing Bill 2025

1. The Crime and Policing Bill 2025 arrives amid deepening poverty and political pressure to “restore order” in public space. It introduces sweeping new police and council powers that risk criminalising two groups in particular: those in poverty, and those who protest against injustice.
2. The socioeconomic backdrop is stark. Inflation and the cost of essentials remain high, while welfare provision and housing availability have failed to keep pace with need.[1] In 2022/23, over 14.3 million people in the UK were living in poverty, including 8.1 million working-age.[2] Food and fuel poverty are widespread, with 77% of people on Universal Credit or disability benefits reporting that they went without basic essentials in the last six months.[3] Rough sleeping is up 20% in a year and now 164% higher than in 2010 and over 78,000 families with children in temporary accommodation.[4]
3. Instead of addressing the root causes of poverty—like inadequate housing, mental health care, and social security—the Bill leans heavily on criminal justice. This approach undermines existing efforts to tackle homelessness, including the Government’s £1 billion pledge to reduce rough sleeping in 2025–26.⁷
4. Clause 1 introduces Respect Orders, a rebranded version of ASBOs, enabling harsh penalties for vague “anti-social” conduct often linked to survival, not harm. Manifesto Club’s research from April 2025 shows that Respect Orders replicate existing ASB Civil Injunctions, which have already led to over 400 imprisonments—often for non-criminal, poverty-related behaviour such as begging or feeding birds. Between 2020 and 2024, nearly half (49.8%) of breach cases resulted in immediate imprisonment, with Gypsy and Traveller defendants facing an 80% rate of immediate custody, and 57% of defendants unrepresented at hearings.[5] Despite claims of reclaiming public space, there is no evidence existing ASB powers are lacking. In fact, councils and police have repeatedly misused them to target begging, rough sleeping, and minor nuisance. Rather than fixing this, the Bill lowers thresholds and adds powers—risking further criminalisation of poverty at a time of record homelessness.
5. At the same time, the Bill intensifies the clampdown on protest. Clauses 86-88 introduces a power to ban face coverings at protests – something that will disproportionately impact disabled people, Muslim women and dissidents. There have also been reports of further government amendments to restrict protest which have not yet been published.
6. This fits within a broader trend of shrinking protest space. Between 28 June 2022 and 31 March 2024, police imposed conditions on at least 712 protests in England and Wales.[6] This includes restrictions on routes, times, noise levels, or gatherings near sensitive locations. Far from protecting democratic rights, this Bill adds yet more low-threshold offences and surveillance powers that deter participation, undermine trust in policing, and risk breaching the UK’s human rights obligations.

A Blueprint for Overreach and Over-Criminalisation

7. Clause 1 – Respect Orders: Clause 1 introduces new civil Respect Orders, intended to replace existing ASB injunctions for adults. These orders, imposed on a mere civil "balance of probabilities," criminalise any breach, punishable by imprisonment. However, the proposed Respect Orders are attempting to effectively resurrect the widely discredited Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs), previously scrapped due to ineffectiveness, misuse, and disproportionate impacts on marginalised groups.[7] Research from JUSTICE in 2023 demonstrates civil orders historically have had limited success in reducing ASB or rehabilitating offenders, instead disproportionately affecting marginalised populations, including homeless individuals, Gypsy and Traveller communities, and those experiencing mental health difficulties.[8] Furthermore, the proposed orders’ broad definitions of ASB and vague criteria for imposing restrictions (the "just and convenient" test) invite inconsistent enforcement, increasing the risk of criminalising trivial conduct or behaviours linked to vulnerability rather than genuine antisocial harm.[9] Historical cases illustrate punitive ASB powers have often criminalised poverty-related behaviours without enhancing community safety or reducing underlying causes of disorder.[10]
8. Clause 2 – Youth and Housing Injunctions: Clause 2 retains separate civil injunction regimes specifically for under-18s ("Youth Injunctions") and housing-related cases ("Housing Injunctions"). Extending civil ASB powers to children as young as 10 raises serious concerns, particularly as England and Wales already have among the lowest ages of criminal responsibility in Europe. Research from the Local Government Association in 2022 indicates early criminalisation increases long-term offending and reduces life opportunities.[11] Similarly, housing injunctions—applying broad definitions like causing "nuisance or annoyance"—risk arbitrary or trivial enforcement against marginalised social housing tenants. These powers have historically been misused against tenants for relatively minor or poverty-related issues, such as untidy properties or mental health-related disturbances, without effectively addressing genuine antisocial behaviour.[12] Evidence from Crisis suggests mediation and supportive interventions (mental health, addiction services, and social care) more effectively resolve such issues than punitive measures.[13]
9. Clause 3 – Expanded Dispersal Powers: Clause 3 expands existing police dispersal powers from a maximum duration of 48 hours to 72 hours, aiming to enhance enforcement against ASB. However, research from Liberty and Release in 2023 highlights such dispersal orders typically provide short-term displacement rather than solving underlying behavioural issues.[14] Repeated dispersals disproportionately affect marginalised groups, notably rough sleepers and young people, exacerbating their social exclusion, disconnecting them from vital support services, and potentially increasing long-term instability.[15] Research from Sheffield Hallam University in 2022 demonstrates that extended dispersal powers fail to deter targeted behaviours and often create resentment or distrust towards authorities, worsening rather than alleviating antisocial tendencies.[16]
10. Clause 4 – Increased Fines for ASB: Clause 4 proposes significantly increasing Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs) for breaches of ASB-related measures—such as Public Spaces Protection Orders (PSPOs) or Community Protection Notices (CPNs)—from the current maximum of £100 to £500. Such a drastic increase disproportionately impacts the poorest and most marginalised individuals, who frequently engage in targeted behaviours (e.g., street begging, rough sleeping, loitering) due to extreme poverty and marginalisation.[17] Data indicate that imposing substantial fines upon individuals who cannot realistically pay often leads to unnecessary court prosecutions, spiralling debt, and greater social exclusion, without evidence of improved compliance or behavioural change.[18]
11. Clauses 86–88 create a new offence of wearing a mask at a protest if police “activate” a face-covering ban. Under section 60AA of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, police can already order someone to remove a mask if it’s believed to conceal identity, and refusal is an offence. The Bill goes further—allowing police to pre-emptively criminalise all face-coverings at a protest if they believe any offence is “likely” and banning masks would help prevent it. This would turn peaceful, privacy-conscious protesters into offenders, even if they do nothing wrong.

Human Rights Analysis

Criminalisation of Poverty Issues

12. Article 8 ECHR – Private Life, Home and Family Life: Respect Orders proposed by the Bill clearly engage Article 8, which protects an individual's right to personal autonomy, dignity, private life, family relationships, and the inviolability of the home. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has explicitly recognised that criminalising survival behaviours such as begging or rough sleeping infringes on human dignity and violates Article 8. For instance, in Lăcătuș v. Switzerland (2021), the ECtHR found that criminalising begging by a marginalised individual was disproportionate and unjustifiable as it interfered with the very essence of personal dignity and autonomy.[19] Applying this principle to Respect Orders, there is significant risk that broad criteria ("just and convenient") and subjective interpretation could lead courts to impose disproportionate measures. Excluding people from public spaces essential for survival, support, or social interaction, or even removing individuals from their own homes, without considering less intrusive alternatives, would constitute serious interference with Article 8 rights. The Bill's current safeguards, including risk assessments of vulnerabilities, are welcome but insufficiently robust without explicit requirements ensuring orders are strictly necessary and proportionate.
13. Article 5 ECHR – Liberty and Security: Although Respect Orders are civil measures, breaches constitute criminal offences punishable by imprisonment, directly engaging Article 5 protections. Article 5 requires detention to be lawful, justified, and non-arbitrary. Respect Orders risk arbitrary detention if conditions imposed are vague, unrealistic, or impossible for marginalised people to comply with—such as those experiencing severe addiction, homelessness, or mental ill-health. Research from Manifesto Club in 2023 highlights frequent misuse of existing CPNs, which have imposed unclear or impossible-to-follow conditions, resulting in inappropriate criminalisation and detention.[20] To comply with Article 5, Respect Orders must set clear, realistic, and understandable conditions tailored to individual circumstances, supported by appropriate guidance and resources.
14. Article 6 ECHR – Right to a Fair Trial: Respect Orders present significant fair trial concerns under Article 6, given their hybrid civil-criminal enforcement mechanism. Initially granted under civil standards (balance of probabilities), potentially ex parte, Respect Orders result in criminal prosecution upon breach. This civil offence, that can result in a criminality if breached, places heightened importance on procedural fairness and adequate legal safeguards. Individuals subject to Respect Orders must be provided genuine opportunities for representation, appeal, and meaningful participation at the civil stage, particularly given the severe criminal sanctions upon breach. Additionally, the Bill's prohibition on conditional discharges limits judicial discretion and risks disproportionate sentencing, particularly harming defendants who would benefit from rehabilitative or supportive interventions rather than punitive measures.
15. Articles 10 and 11 ECHR – Freedom of Expression and Assembly: Respect Orders and related expanded dispersal powers could indirectly impact freedoms of expression and assembly. Marginalised groups (e.g., homeless individuals) frequently use public spaces to communicate distress (e.g., through peaceful begging or public assembly for safety). Misuse of broad ASB powers, including Respect Orders or dispersal orders, risks infringing these freedoms.
16. Marginalised groups — such as homeless individuals — often use public space to express distress or to assemble for safety or support. Without careful limits, Respect Orders and dispersal powers could be used to suppress such expressions, potentially infringing Articles 10 and 11. The Government should therefore make clear, through statutory guidance and safeguards, that ASB powers must not be used to curtail lawful, peaceful expression or assembly, particularly where such conduct falls within the scope of protected rights under the ECHR. 
17. Article 14 ECHR – Non-Discrimination: Respect Orders risk indirectly discriminating against marginalised groups, such as homeless individuals, Gypsy and Traveller communities, and persons experiencing mental ill-health or addiction. Evidence indicates existing ASB measures have been disproportionately applied against marginalised groups, penalising socio-economic status and exacerbating marginalisation rather than addressing underlying issues.[21] Monitoring enforcement to detect discriminatory patterns, accompanied by corrective guidance, is critical to prevent indirect discrimination and ensure fair and equitable application of Respect Orders.
18. International Standards – ICESCR and Criminalisation of Poverty: International human rights standards, particularly the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), explicitly condemn criminalisation of poverty-related behaviours such as rough sleeping, begging, or loitering. The UN Special Rapporteurs on extreme poverty and adequate housing underline that homelessness and poverty should be addressed through supportive social policies (housing, healthcare, social security), not punitive measures. Enforcement-driven approaches like Respect Orders risk exacerbating poverty and failing to address root causes, contravening international obligations to progressively realise the right to adequate housing and the right to the highest attainable standard of health.[22] Additionally, increasing financial penalties (Clause 4 of the Bill) significantly risks entrenching poverty by imposing unpayable fines on impoverished individuals, worsening their situations without effectively deterring behaviours associated with survival and poverty. Instead, effective interventions prioritise adequate housing provision, healthcare, addiction treatment, and social services, aligning enforcement measures strictly with supportive rather than punitive intentions.

Protest Issues

19. Articles 10 and 11 ECHR – Freedom of Expression and Assembly: Bans on face coverings at protests under broad conditions, despite peaceful reasons for masking—health, religion, or protection from surveillance are likely to interfere with thie enjoyment of Articles 10 and 11. The ECtHR has stressed that peaceful protestors should not be penalised based on speculative risks or the actions of others (Primov v. Russia, 2014), and that public authorities must show tolerance towards protest, even where some disruption is expected.[23] The lack of a prior exemption for religious or medical face coverings—only allowing a defence after arrest—risks both rights violations and discriminatory enforcement. The ECtHR has made clear in cases like Taranenko v. Russia (2014) that symbolic acts at protests fall within the scope of protected expression.[24] The ECtHR has also stated that immigration-related sanctions must not be used in a discriminatory or retaliatory fashion against protestors.[25]

• Article 14 ECHR – Non- Discrimination: Clauses 86–88 disproportionately affect Muslim women and disabled protestors wearing face coverings. The ECtHR has found that indirect discrimination on the basis of immigration status, religion, or ethnicity in the exercise of fundamental rights requires “very weighty reasons” to be justified (DH v. Czech Republic, 2007).[26] No such reasons are provided in the Bill.

20. Furthermore, Clauses 86–88 risk creating a significant chilling effect on protest participation. Criminalising masks sends a clear message that protest carries unacceptable risks.⁶ The ECtHR has consistently found that laws which discourage protest through fear of legal sanction undermine Articles 10 and 11 (see Navalnyy v. Russia, 2018).[27] These provisions risk suppressing the voices of the most marginalised—racialised groups, refugees, religious minorities—who often rely on protest to challenge injustice.

The Way Forward

Conclusion

21. The Crime and Policing Bill 2025 risks entrenching inequality by criminalising both protest and poverty. It revives failed ASBO-style powers through Respect Orders, targeting people already facing homelessness, mental ill-health or marginalisation. As the UN Special Rapporteurs made clear in 2024, “criminalisation is not a rational or proportionate response to enhancing public order and safety.”[28] At the same time, it imposes further constraints on an already restricted right to protest by introducing powers to ban face coverings.
22. These measures duplicate existing powers and undermine core rights to freedom of expression, assembly, and non-discrimination. They risk chilling public participation and disproportionately punishing the most vulnerable. Instead of more enforcement, the Government should invest in support—housing, health, and community-led solutions. If Parliament is serious about rights and democracy, these provisions must be amended or removed.

Recommendations

23. Scrap Respect Orders from the Bill entirely. Clause 1 should be removed. There is no compelling evidence base to support introducing Respect Orders. Existing powers under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (such as injunctions, CBOs, and dispersal orders) are already extensive and—where used appropriately—capable of dealing with persistent ASB. Rather than layering on a new enforcement mechanism that reintroduces criminal penalties for civil breaches (repeating the mistakes of ASBOs), the Government should invest in improving the application, oversight and resourcing of existing tools.
24. If Respect Orders are retained, the following safeguards are essential:

• Replace the “just and convenient” threshold with a test of necessity and proportionality, focused on preventing serious harm.
• Include an explicit statutory duty to consider homelessness, disability, and mental health before making an order.
• Make the risk assessment (Section J1) legally binding and subject to court scrutiny.
• Require six-monthly reviews of all Respect Orders to ensure they remain necessary.
• Add a clause explicitly stating that orders must not be sought based solely on conduct stemming from homelessness or poverty.

25. Ensure criminal prosecutions for breach are subject to CPS oversight.
    Breach of a Respect Order should not result in automatic prosecution. Require the Crown Prosecution Service to assess the public interest and consider vulnerability and mitigation.
26. Commission a full independent review of existing ASB powers.
    The Government should commit to a public review of how ASB tools (PSPOs, CPNs, dispersal orders, etc.) have been used since 2014, with particular focus on their impact on rough sleepers, children, disabled people, and racialised communities. This review should inform any future reform.
27. Redirect funding toward support services, not punitive measures.
    Increase investment in:

• Social housing and supported accommodation
• Mental health and addiction services, with fast-track access routes from ASB teams
• Community mediation and restorative approaches to low-level conflict
• Training for police and local authority staff to recognise vulnerability and engage support before enforcing sanctions

28. Establish independent oversight and reporting mechanisms.
    Create a national monitoring panel involving the EHRC, civil society, and frontline experts to track the use of Respect Orders and ASB sanctions. Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights should review the use of these powers within can you 12 months of enactment, with power to recommend legislative amendments.
29. Remove protest-related clauses from the Bill: Clauses 86–88 (mask ban) should be removed. These clauses are unnecessary, duplicate existing powers, and violate fundamental rights including freedom of expression, assembly, and protection from discrimination. Police already have powers under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, the Explosives Act 1875, and immigration law to address unlawful behaviour. These new offences are overbroad, disproportionate, and risk chilling peaceful protest.
30. If protest clauses are retained, is it essential that a “reasonable excuse” defence is embedded into Clause 86 that would exempt religious, health and privacy-related face coverings from criminalisation at the point of arrest.
31. The Government should commission an independent review of the Public Order Act 1986 and all protest-related powers introduced since 2022, including those under the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act and Public Order Act 2023. The review should assess:

• The cumulative impact of protest restrictions on freedom of expression and assembly under Articles 10 and 11 ECHR;
• The use of conditions, arrests, and surveillance against peaceful protestors;
• Disproportionate impacts on marginalised and racialised groups; and
• Whether existing powers are necessary, proportionate, and compatible with the Human Rights Act.

32. This review should involve civil society and be led by an independent expert or body such as the independent reviewer or the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
33. Liberty and others will be supporting amendment NC53 to ensure that the right to peaceful protest is respected, protected and fulfilled, and other amendments to remove or amend these clauses. We urge MPs to support these and uphold the UK’s domestic and international rights obligations. For more information, [including a full analysis of the Crime and Policing Bill 2025], please email lyleb@libertyhumanrights.org.uk.