---

Serious Crime Bill [HL]

I can be brief on this amendment, but that does not mean that I have no sympathy with it—quite the reverse. I am grateful to Liberty for its briefing, which focuses on the reverse burden of proof. In moving the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, referred to the innocence of mind and the lack of intent of the person who is potentially subject to the order. We turn to the matter of intent in the next group of amendments and I shall not encroach on that now. It is right to ask the Minister why it is appropriate in this case to impose the burden of proof on the defendant or, as the Government would say in this case, the ““respondent””, as the civil procedure would be followed. She will know from previous debates on other Bills that we on these Benches wish to avoid the reverse burden of proof wherever possible—it even led me to being in the invidious position of being unable to support my noble friend Lady Miller of Hendon in her efforts to ensure that people on the streets could not wear veils in certain circumstances, simply because she was seeking a reverse burden of proof, which made matters so sensitive. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, is right to target this issue, because at the moment I do not see any justification for applying the reverse burden of proof in this case.