Too much proof needed on gangs says lawyer

Mar 26 2009 by Paul Dale, Birmingham Post

Police cannot take action against scores of suspected Birmingham gang members because the proof required for a criminal prosecution is too great, a senior city council lawyer has revealed.

David Tatlow said there were “thousands of cases” which could not be pursued as the quality of evidence available to the police was not good enough to secure a conviction in a crown court.

He urged the government to reverse a ban on taking action against gang members in the civil courts, where the burden of proof is not so great.

During 2007 Birmingham became the first council in the country to secure injunctions against young people suspected of being involved in gangs.

Banning orders prevented suspects from associating with other members of their gang, from wearing gang colours and from going into the area that they considered to be their territory.

More than 50 injunctions were served, which the council said led to a marked decrease in gang-related crime across the city.

But in January 2008 a judge at Birmingham County Court dismissed applications for injunctions against two alleged gang members.

The decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal, which ruled that civil injunctions were an inappropriate way of dealing with suspected criminals.

To secure a conviction in a civil court it is only necessary to prove an offence “on the balance of probabilities”. But a criminal prosecution requires a jury to find an offence proved “beyond all reasonable doubt”. Police find it almost impossible to persuade witnesses to stand up in court and give evidence against violent gang members.