public nuisance and outraging public decency - Law Commission
public nuisance and outraging public decency - Law Commission
public nuisance and outraging public decency - Law Commission
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Summary: Analysis & Evidence<br />
Policy Option: 4 Description: Abolish the existing offences without replacement<br />
COSTS<br />
BENEFITS<br />
ANNUAL COSTS<br />
One-off (Transition) Yrs<br />
£ Negligible<br />
Average Annual Cost<br />
(excluding one-off)<br />
Description <strong>and</strong> scale of key monetised costs by ‘main<br />
affected groups’<br />
The abolition of these offences might lead to an increase in the<br />
use of other procedures.<br />
£ Total Cost (PV) £<br />
Other key non-monetised costs by ‘main affected groups’<br />
Prosecutors would be limited to using narrow <strong>and</strong> specialised offences <strong>and</strong> procedures, which do<br />
not adequately reflect the scope or the gravity of the more serious <strong>and</strong> flagrant instances of<br />
misbehaviour, <strong>and</strong> may not keep up with innovations in anti-social behaviour.<br />
ANNUAL BENEFITS<br />
One-off Yrs<br />
£<br />
Average Annual Benefit<br />
(excluding one-off)<br />
Description <strong>and</strong> scale of key monetised benefits by ‘main<br />
affected groups’<br />
There would be a saving of the cost of anything up to a thous<strong>and</strong><br />
prosecutions in each year, partially offset by the use of other<br />
procedures.<br />
£ Total Benefit (PV) £<br />
Other key non-monetised benefits by ‘main affected groups’<br />
Defendants would not be prosecuted for offences of uncertain scope which target negligent or<br />
inadvertent behaviour (this benefit is common to options 2, 3 <strong>and</strong> 4)<br />
Key Assumptions/Sensitivities/Risks<br />
Key assumption: statistics provided by the CPS <strong>and</strong> local authorities are correct <strong>and</strong> representative.<br />
Risk: that some perpetrators of wilful or persistent misbehaviour would remain unprosecuted, or be<br />
prosecuted for minor offences that do not reflect the seriousness of what occurred.<br />
Price Base<br />
Year<br />
Time Period<br />
Years<br />
Net Benefit Range (NPV)<br />
£<br />
79<br />
NET BENEFIT (NPV Best estimate)<br />
£<br />
What is the geographic coverage of the policy/option?<br />
On what date will the policy be implemented?<br />
Engl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> Wales<br />
Which organisation(s) will enforce the policy? Courts, prosecutors<br />
What is the total annual cost of enforcement for these organisations? £ Negligible<br />
Does enforcement comply with Hampton principles? Not applicable<br />
Will implementation go beyond minimum EU requirements? Not applicable<br />
What is the value of the proposed offsetting measure per year? £ Not applicable<br />
What is the value of changes in greenhouse gas emissions? £ Not applicable<br />
Will the proposal have a significant impact on competition? No<br />
Annual cost (£-£) per organisation<br />
(excluding one-off)<br />
Micro Small Medium Large<br />
Are any of these organisations exempt? Yes/No Yes/No N/A N/A<br />
Impact on Admin Burdens Baseline (2005 Prices)<br />
(Increase - Decrease)<br />
Increase of £ Decrease of £ Net Impact £ None anticipated
Change language