THE CRIME & POLICING BILL
- Mar 25
- 16 min read
Updated: Mar 28
THE DEATH OF ARTICLE 8 'RIGHT TO PRIVACY' AND PRINCIPLE OF AUTONOMY
ON 23/03/2026 THE CRIME & POLICING BILL PASSED ITS THIRD READING IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS AND NOW AWAITS ROYAL ASSENT. THE BILL HEAVILY CURTAILS ARTICLE 8 OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998 'THE RIGHT TO PRIVATE LIFE' ALLOWING THE POLICE TO ENTER YOUR HOME WITHOUT A WARRANT, SEIZE YOUR VEHICLE WITHOUT WARNING AND WITHOUT REDRESS OR APOLOGY.
This article concerns the Crime & Policing Bill (the Bill) expected to become law within weeks. It begins with a synopsis and then places the Bill in context through a dropdown Q&A. Finally, it concludes with the contact details for solicitors whom can help. Please note, we use the term 'defendant' rather than 'offender' for a convicted person but
the latter is the accepted norm. As with all articles published on this site, nothing constitutes legal advice and you are referred to our terms and conditions of use accordingly. Any opinion expressed herein is solely the personal opinion of the author. Always speak a solicitor practicing in criminal law when dealing with the police.
SYNOPSIS
The Bill and its current stage through Parliament can be accessed and viewed directly by clicking here.
In summary of the key changes:
Police No Warrants Needed: The primary aim of the Bill is speed & efficiency. The police will no longer require a warrant to brake through your door subject to the pretence that the invasion was 'to track stolen goods' or, they 'reasonably believed your property was being used by cuckoos'. This is entirely subjective and the police have complete immunity from prosecution. Consequently, victims seeking redress will be left having to incur the cost of private civil law sues for nominal handouts, the cost of this will almost certainly outweigh the reward. This essentially kills Article 8 HRA 1998 'Right to Private Life' and as the only check on this abuse of power are the police themselves it is also arguably a breach of Article 6 HRA 1998 .
Police Vehicle Seizures Without Warning: The Bill will amend s.59 Police Reform Act 2002 allowing the police to seize (or 'steal') your motor vehicle without warning on the pretence it can cause “alarm, distress or annoyance. This literally covers everything above a toy car while failing to provide the public with any protection whatsoever. As it is now, the police are required to issue a verbal or written warning first—basically “stop doing that or we’ll take it.” This allows the tax-payers to properly challenge the basis of the warning. However, once the Bill becomes law no warning is required and anyone whom has previously beaten the police in court will likely have to deal with irritating plods constantly seizing their bikes or motor vehicles while having to pay a fine for the pleasure.
Increased Protection for 'Corrupt' Police Officers: The Bill will 'reform' the Independent Officer of Police Conduct's investigative process, introduce a presumption of anonymity for firearm officers up to the point of sentence and give the chief officers of the police the right to appeal the result of misconduct boards to the Police of Appeals Tribunal while increasing the threshold for referring corrupt officers to the Crown Prosecution Service. This is at the same time civilians are losing their automatic right to appeal from the Magistrates Court and trial by the Jury in the Crown Court. That being said, the Bill will introduce barred and advisory lists of the National Crime Agency, British Transport Police, Civil Nuclear Constabulary and Ministry of Defence Police to prevent dismissed officers from being re-employed by another force. Whether it is followed is another matter and why is this only being considered in 2026 when criminal records have existed since time immemorial?
Right to Protest Further Curtailed: The Bill introduces new public order offences such as concealing your identity during a public protests regardless whether that was your intention. Think wearing a scarf and looking at where you are walking on a cold day when a drone flys above to scan your biometrics i.e. face etc. Protesters will also be prohibited from climbing any monument regardless of damage.
Cuckooing and Child Exploitation: The Bill creates brand-new offences for ‘cuckooing' i.e. when alleged criminal gangs take over 'vulnerable flats' (those owned by addicts, elderly) for drugs or lines and/or child criminal exploitation (grooming kids into crime). The stated purpose is to shield the weak from county lines, stop flats becoming stash houses, and break cycles before young people get sucked in, However in practice, we suspect that it will be used to knock down the doors of any person whom might have a bit of cannabis. Think students, young carers and any professional looking 'like a hipster'. (For the avoidance of doubt, cannabis save for that prescribed by a properly licensed medical professional is illegal and you should not use it).
Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG) Measures: Grooming becomes a statutory aggravating factor in child sex sentencing and supposedly creates a new duty for professionals i.e. teachers, social workers etc to report suspected abuse (these professionals were already under such a duty). The new offences cover intimate image abuse, voyeurism, spiking drinks, and assisting self-harm. Offender disclosure (aka 'Sarah's law) becomes statutory law. The goal? To cut VAWG by 50% in a decade, protect victims early, punish enablers, and fix gaps from child abuse inquiries i.e. all the usual pretences for any power grab.
Knife Crime Reforms (a.k.a ‘Ronan’s Law’): The Bill creates a new offence for possessing a knife or offensive weapon ‘with intent.’ This means the police need prove that you are planning harm, not just carrying and arguably makes the prosecutions job more difficult. It hikes max penalties for making, selling, or lending banned blades (like ninja swords), and lets police raid homes for knives again without a warrant in some cases. The stated aim is to halve knife crime over ten years—named after Ronan Kanda, killed by online-bought weapons—to close loopholes, deter dealers, and make streets safer for kids.
Anti-Social Behaviour Tools (Respect Orders): Local Authorities and the police will be able to slap ‘respect orders’ on repeat offender i.e. curfews, no-go zones, legal bans on meeting with your friends. A breach of these orders will result in a custodial sentence. Vehicle seizures skip warnings. The alleged aim is to tackle low-level chaos (noise, threats, joyriding) that ruins neighbourhoods—make enforcement quicker, fairer, without endless court trips. In reality this just sets fire to the whole Human Rights act 1998.
Other Bits (Shop Assaults, Youth Radicalisation): New offence for assaulting retail workers—shop thefts all triable either way. Youth diversion orders for under-21s at terror risk—court programs, no custody if they comply. Aims: protect frontline staff, stop radicalisation early, keep young people out of prison. Enhanced drug testing on arrest, powers to seize SIM Farms and of course, more powers to persecute wealthy individuals and/or corporations while providing the police with enhanced immunity.
Please note, we have not quoted specific clauses as these are open to amendment prior to the Bill becoming law.
CONTEXT
Unless otherwise stated we refer to the legal jurisdiction of England & Wales only. The version of the Bill to which we refer can be accessed by clicking here.
What Is the Purpose of the Crime & Policing Bill?
The stated purpose of the Bill as per Parliamentry Bills website as of 25/03/2025 is:
"A Bill to make provision about anti-social behaviour, offensive weapons, offences against people (including sexual offences), property offences, the criminal exploitation of persons, sex offenders, stalking and public order; to make provision about powers of the police, the border force and other similar persons; to make provision about confiscation; to make provision about police; to make provision about terrorism and national security, and about international agreements relating to crime; to make provision about the criminal liability of bodies; and for connected purposes."
A less panicked version of these pretences can be viewed on the government's website by clicking here.
What is 'Cuckooing' & what are the penalties/sentences?
In the context of UK criminal law 'cuckooing' refers to taking control of another person's dwelling to use as base for illegal activity, often for dealing illegal drugs, storing cash or running county lines. In most cases the owner is a 'vulnerable adult' is 'groomed' and then either forced out of their dwelling or is coerced. Think Assisted Accommodation with blacked out windows, different people always coming and going but a knock on the door will either go unanswered or reluctantly so by the intimidated legal occupant. The term 'cuckooing' refers to the cuckoo bird which pushes the eggs of other birds out of the victim's nest and replaces them with its own.
Prior to the Bill there was no legal definition for the offence of 'Cuckooing' and cases often fell under s.10 Theft Act 1968 i.e. criminal damage or coercion with trespass. Now:
Chapter 2 Cuckooing - Clause 67
(1) A person (A) commits an offence -
(a) A exercises control over the dwelling of another person (B), and
(b) A does so for the purpose of enabling the dwelling to be used in connection with the commission (by any person) of one or more relevant offences, and
(c) B does not consent to A exercising that control for that purpose.
As for the issue of 'consent', His Majesty's Government (HMG)'s Fact Sheet accompanying the Bill explains that a person 18 years old or over with mental capacity cannot give consent to control their dwelling if they have not been given sufficient information to enable them to make informed decisions, have not given consent freely i.e. are under coercion or have withdrawn their consent. A similar sounding test to that of intervening third parties when considering causation in result-only offences.
As for the penalty? The maximum penalty for cuckooing is a summary conviction in the Magistrates Court (currently 6 months but it is being increased), a fine or both. On indictment, it is for term not exceeding 5 years. In both cases a fine may also be levied.
What are the new Respect Orders?
In short they are the new Criminal Behaviour Order (CB0) or the Anti-Social Behaviour Order (ASBO). By way of a comparative explanation:
Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs): The Crime and Disorder ACT 1998 introduced ASBOs which were a civil court order designed to combat intimidation, drunkenness, vandalism and persistent nuisance, outside of the family. They applied to anyone over 10 years of age and were personalised e.g. bans from the town centre, public drinking and/or approaching certain people. Despite being a civil court order, breaching an ASBO amounted to a criminal offence carrying a sentence of up to 5 years in prison. The use of ASBOs were extended by the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 despite being heavily criticised for their lack of rehabilitation requirements i.e. a drunk would be banned from a town centre but not required to attend rehabilitation. Ultimately, the term 'ASBO' became a derogative term for certain people and they were finally abolished by the Coalition Government's Anti-Social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014 (a.k.a. the Hug-a-Hoodie agenda).
Criminal Behaviour Orders (CBO): The Anti-Social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014 replaced ASBOs with Criminal Behaviour Orders (CBOs). They are (or 'were' when the Bill becomes law) designed to prevented the Defendant from engaging in further anti-social or criminal behaviour that caused or was likely to cause alarm, distress and/or nuisance in a public place. The key distinctions to the ASBO were that they:
Applied to any <10 year olds.
Could Include rehabilitative requirements such as drug treatment.
Could last >2 years or be indefinite for adults.
Abolished the 'name and shame' agenda of an ASBO as they focussed on serious/persistent defendants.
Respect Orders: In place of CBOs the Bill aims to introduce 'Respect Orders.' Despite what you may think of the name, these are not intended to be a joke. Like an ASBO they will at first fall under the jurisdiction of the civil courts but 'showing disrespect yeah' will be a criminal offence carrying a maximum sentence of 2 years The Bill does not abolish the Crime and Policing Act 2014 but seeks to amend it under Chapter 1. The key changes compared to CBOs that we can see are:
Issued: Pre-Conviction.
Issued By: (a) a local authority, (b) a housing provider, (c) the chief officer of police for a police area, (d) the chief constable of the British Transport Police Force, (e) Transport for London (f) Transport for Greater Manchester, (g) the Environmental Agency, (h) the Natural Resources Body for Wales, (i) Secretary of State (j) Welsh Ministers exercising security management functions.
Against: Anyone >18 years.
Jurisdiction: Civil then Criminal
Evidential Burden: Balance of Probabilities as opposed to Beyond all Reasonable Doubt.
Rehabilitation: Supervised. CBOs did not have a supervision or risk assessment requirement.
Maximum Custodial Sentence if breached: Over 2 years.
What are the new Youth & Housing injunctions?
These are essentially Respect Orders but in a specific context. Firstly, an 'injunction' is an equitable remedy where a court (civil or criminal) orders a party to perform (a prohibitory injunction) or refrain from performing (a mandatory injunction) a particular act. They can be temporary or permanent (a final injunction). In the context of the Bill:
A Youth Injunction: Chapter 1 clause 2 of the Bill duplicates the powers under the Crime and Policing Act 2014 in the granting of injunctions to persons over the age of 10 but under 18 branding them 'youth injunctions.' The distinction appears to be that the 2014 Act were civil injunctions and that such an application must be presented to the youth court, is limited to 12 months and cannot exclude the respondent/youth from its home. As with Respect Orders there is at first a requirement to undertake a risk assessment.
Housing Injunction: As with Youth Injunctions these can be granted for the purposes of preventing the respondent from engaging in certain conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance relating to occupation or management of housing. The only distinction we can from a youth injunction is that when the responded is >18 years of age it is a 'Housing Injunction.'
What are the Enhanced Powers to tackle Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB)?
Chapter 2 'Other Provisions About Anti-Social Behaviour' provides for enhanced powers to deal with ASB. Of note:
Clause 3 - Maximum Period for Certain Directions, Notices & Orders: This refers to Dispersal Orders/Notices/Directions and Closure Notices:
Dispersal Directions: Pursuant to the Anti-Social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014. Prior to the Bill a police inspector or above could issue such a notice to a group that they should disperse for up to 48 hours. Failing to comply with a Dispersal Order could lead to arrests, fines up £2500 and/or 3 months jail time. The Bill amends the 48 hour period to 72 hours but includes a 48 hour mandatory review.
Closure Notices: The time to comply with a Closure Notice is extended from 48 hours to 72.
Clause 4 - Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs): These refer to financial penalties issued by Local Authorities and police officers for relatively minor offences such as traffic violations, littering or dog fouling. Payment of the FPN discharges liability without a criminal record. The Bill increases the upper limit for FPNs issued for breaches of Public Space Protection Orders and Community Protection Notices ("CPNs") from £100 to £500 by amending sections 52 & 68 Crime and Policing Bill 2014.
Clause 5 - Closure of Premises by registered Social Housing Provider: The Bill seeks to amend Chapter 3 of the Crime & Policing Act 2014 by extending the powers vested in Senior Police Officers or local authority to close a premise likely to be used for nuisance or disorder to a social housing provider.
Clause 6 - Reviews of Responses to Complaints about ASB: This clause seeks to enhance the role of Local Policing Bodies (LPB s) in ASB case reviews undertaken pursuant to Schedule 4 of the Crime & Policing Act 2014. This obliges the police to carry out a further review of response to ASB beyond the initial case review and to promote opportunities to make applications for ASB case reviews which is intended to promote opportunities for victims to query decisions.
Clause 7 - Provision of Information about ASB to the Secretary of State: The Home Secretary will have the power force local authorities, social housing providers and other bodies to report specified ASB data to the Home Office by inserting a new section 105A into the Crime & Policing Act 2014.
Clause 8 - Seizure of Motor Vehicles used in a manner causing alarm, distress or annoyance: As indicated above the police now have the powers to seize a vehicle without warning and thereafter issue a fine for this service.
The remainder of the increased powers largely tackle ASB relate to 'fly tipping' which are discussed below. There are also increased powers in relation to trespass and arranging begging.
What is Fly Tipping and what are the penalties/sentences?
'Fly Tipping' refers to the illegal dumping of waste that is more serious than littering. In the simplest of terms it refers to dumping rubbish you would usually go to the 'tip' to deposit 'on the fly.' Pursuant to s.33 Environmental Protection Act 1990 Prohibition on unauthorised or harmful deposit, treatment or disposal etc of waste, a person shall not -
(a) deposit controlled waste [or extractive waste], or knowingly cause or knowingly permit controlled waste [or extractive waste] to be deposited in or on any land unless [an environmental permit] authorising the deposit is in force and the deposit is in accordance with the license;
(b) submit controlled waste or knowingly cause of knowingly permit controlled waste to be submitted, to any listed operation (other than an operation within subsection (1)(a) that -
(i) carried out in or any land, or by means of any mobile plant and;
(ii) is not carried out under an in accordance with an environmental permit.
(c) treat, or keep or dispose of controlled waste [or extractive waste] in a manner likely to cause pollution of the environment or harm to human health.
The Bill seeks to enhance the powers of the authorities to deal with fly tipping under Chapter 2 - Other Provisions about Anti-Social Behaviour:
Clause 9 - Guidance on Fly-Tipping in England: This simply says the Secretary of State may issue guidance to authorities as to the collection of waste and their officers, in connection with enforcement.
Clause 10 - Points on Driving License of Fly Tipping: The environmental agency may now issue 3 penalty points to a Defendants driving license.
Clause 11 - Seizure of Vehicles in Connection with Fly-Tipping Offences: This simply repeats that the police can seize a Defendant's vehicle without warning but may do so for fly-tipping as it is ASB.
Clause 12 - Fly-Tipping: English waste collection authority duty: Where fly-tipping has occurred the local authority is still under a positive duty to collect it and then seek to recover the cost from the Defendant.
The UK is currently in a debt spiral, how much will the Bill cost the taxpayer?
Parliament's own assessment is that the Bill is:
Currently the Bill which is not yet law is costing the tax-payer: £48.69 MILL. And then it will cost;
A one time transition cost of £187.16 MILL.
Thereafter the average monetised 'benefit' of provisions is £11.81 MILL a multi-million pound net loss which assumes the police will do their job efficiently and does not take account of possible counter-law sues.
You can view the financial assessment directly from the Ministry of Justices own website by clicking here.
Will the Bill Apply to the Entire UK?
Yes. Subject to limited exceptions, all the provisions in the Bill will apply to England & Wales. Certain provisions will apply to Scotland and Northern Ireland. The exact provisions are beyond the scope of this article however, you can access the Scottish Parliament's version of the Bill by clicking here.
What do Independent Third Parties have to say about the Bill?
We have selected the first 4 groups from a simple google search 'Crime & Policing Bill' while discounting the websites of other law offices.
The Justice Campaign Group: Describes the Bill as 'Chilling' reflecting it does nothing to address the root cause of offending, duplicates offences and will further increase distrust in the police force through erosion of police accountability. You can read their views by clicking here.
The National Housing Federation: The National Housing Federation celebrates the Bill 's acknowledgement of the strong link between social housing and anti-social behaviour. Their short article can be viewed by clicking here.
The Catholic Church: The Catholic Church condemns the House of Lords decision to reject Baroness Monckton's amendment to remove clause 208 which decriminalises on-demand abortion up to birth in England & Wales. Their denouncement can be viewed by clicking here.
The Church of England: The archbishop of Canterbury follows its Catholic parent criticising the Bills stance on abortion while turning its cheek to all civil liberty threats. The Archbishop's stance can be viewed by clicking here.
What about the Human Rights?
The European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) was signed in Rome 1950, ratified by the UK in 1951 and came into force 1953. The Human Rights Act 1998 incorporated the ECHR into domestic law and came into effect from 02/10/2000. This means there is no longer any requirement for citizens to petition the court sitting in Strasbourg although this right still exists and has done since 1966. UK citizens can now enforce their rights in their local courts. The ECHR sets out a number of rights the pertinent ones violated by the Bill are:
Article 6 - Right to Fair Trial: All persons are granted the right to fair trial and to have their case heard and decided by an impartial tribunal. This right grants the presumption of innocence to a defendant and enforces obligations on the prosecution to prove the case against the defendant but more importantly; it is unlawful for 'public authorities' to violate any Convention right or act in a way that is incompatible with a Convention right. 'Public authority' includes courts and tribunals and private individuals and organisations performing public functions s.6(3)(b) HRA 1998. Furthermore, s.2 and s.3 HRA 1998 also provides that judges must interpret national legislation 'so far as is possible' in line with Convention.
Article 8 - Right to Private Life: All persons are granted the right to private and family life. This right means that the life of an individual cannot be interfered with by another, which includes the state and the police. Such rights include the right to privacy and the protection of personal information. Consequently, victims of police invasion under the Bill should consider:
Bloomberg LP -v- ZXC [2002] UKSC 5: The UK Supreme Court held that a person under criminal investigation has a reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of information in the course of an investigation. The expectation of privacy in respect of information gathered in the course of an investigation. The expectation of privacy only extends however, until the person is charges with the offence.
Articles 10 & 11 - Freedom of Assembly (aka Right to Protest): All persons are granted the freedom to assemble. Article 11 is particularly relevant where the defendant is liable for a public order offence involving the assembly of more than one person (e.g. riot). Since DPP -v- Ziegler [2021] UKSC 23 the principle that the prosecution had to prove that a conviction would be proportionate to defendants rights under Articles 10 and 11 has been heavily eroded DPP -v- Cuciurean [2022] EWHC 736 (Admin): In that case, the Defendant was charged with aggravated trespass. Lord Burnett CJ once more explained that Ziegler does not lay down any principles that for all offences arising out of 'non-violent' protest the prosecution has to prove that a conviction would be proportionate to the defendant's rights under Articles 10 and 11 of the ECHR. Ziegler was concerned specifically with the defence of lawful excuse under the Highways Act 1980. In our view however, that does not mean the principle of proportionality is dead. Only that the Ziegler case does not on its own assist.
What about the Principle of Autonomy?
There are 4 overarching principles of the criminal law derived from criminal law. These are Autonomy, Fair Labelling, Welfare and Fair Warning. The Principle of 'Autonomy' is that the subject/citizen is little restraint with minimal interference from another person. Autonomy is often linked with self-determination and integrity in the sense that no undue influence, pressure or interference should be made.
COMMENT
Our take in brief: Total Self-Destructive Overreach. The Bill chases speed and efficiency, but it misses the mark entirely by ignoring the ongoing collapse in policing standard and shoots itself in the foot by making it harder if not impossible to prosecute officers. Civil liberties necessary for good commerce are sacrificed on the lie that the police need more power and money, not more brains and tighter belts.
ASSISTANCE
This office will begin offering criminal defence services from 2027 onwards. Until then you should contact a practicing criminal defence solicitor a list of which can be found on the Law Society of England & Wales' web page. You can access this by clicking here.
