Anti-thug laws need strengthening

Last week's lead story on the leniency shown to violent offenders in pubs, who may get away with just a caution, is rather underlined by the weakening of the existing "Ban the Thug" provisions under the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006.

Under the existing law, a banning order can be made against anyone who threatens or uses violence on licensed premises. This can take many forms and can occur at different times and in different situations. The purpose of the old Act was to protect licensees from dangerous and/or vindictive people and to ensure that any ban would have legal backing.

But the new law requires slightly more. A drinking banning order may only be made in circumstances where it is shown that the person has "engaged in criminal or disorderly conduct while under the influence of alcohol."

Knowing how carefully the police sometimes tread on these issues, and how there have been times when the existing provisions have been ignored or sidelined, I have previously expressed concern that the focus of the law has changed. Instead of protecting the licensee, the law now concentrates on the subject of alcohol itself.

Take the situation of a licensee who is in a Pubwatch or similar scheme, who knows that a person is the subject of an unofficial ban by local pubs. He refuses service to that individual. He has not served a drink and the individual has not consumed any alcohol, but still lashes out. According to my reading, that would be enough under the old law, but is insufficient under the new provisions.

Now, it is not the violence that is an issue, but the drink. Admittedly, a large percentage of the violent acts committed on licensed premises can be related to the consumption of alcohol, but not in every case. A refusal to serve - the licensee's right - is not protected under the new law.

The other element that concerns me is the fact that this is a much more general provision. The only relevance to licensed premises is the effect of the banning order. The offence for which the person is charged can take place anywhere, not just on licensed premises.

I am sure that there are going to be numerous examples where a drinking banning order is made that may be unknown to bar staff, because the Act appears not to make any provision for the publication of banning orders.