Knife Crime

notably lower than the criminal burden of proof, raising questions about whether such intrusions meet the proportionality test, particularly when applied to children and young people who may be carrying knives for protection rather than criminal purposes. The lack of differentiation between adults and children in the application of these powers is particularly concerning from a human rights perspective. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which the UK is a signatory, requires that children's best interests be a primary consideration in all actions concerning them. The indiscriminate application of enhanced penalties and seizure powers fails to recognise children's distinct developmental status and their entitlement to special protection. Privacy implications of expanded search powers extend beyond immediate concerns about property searches to broader questions about surveillance and community trust. The power to seize knives from private property, whilst ostensibly limited to circumstances where police are lawfully present, creates potential for mission creep and expanded surveillance of communities already experiencing disproportionate police attention. Research evidence consistently demonstrates that heavy-handed policing approaches can damage community trust and cooperation, ultimately undermining public safety objectives. Due process concerns arise particularly in relation to the seizure and destruction of property without criminal conviction. Whilst the Bill provides for magistrates' court review of seizures, the burden of proof appears to rest with property owners to demonstrate that seizure was inappropriate. This reversal of the usual presumption of innocence is problematic from a due process perspective and may create particular barriers for young people and families lacking legal knowledge or resources. The increased maximum penalties for knife-related offences, whilst appearing procedurally neutral, raise substantive due process concerns when applied to children and young people. Research evidence consistently demonstrates that longer sentences do not provide additional deterrent effect beyond shorter terms, whilst causing documented harm to young people's development and future life prospects. The failure to differentiate between adult and youth sentencing in these measures suggests a departure from established principles of youth justice that prioritise rehabilitation and development. Recommendations for Legal Compliance would require the Bill to incorporate explicit age- differentiated approaches that recognise children's distinct legal status and developmental needs. This should include presumptions in favour of diversion from formal criminal processes for children, mandatory consideration of welfare needs prior to any enforcement action, and explicit safeguards against discriminatory application of enhanced powers. Furthermore, any seizure powers should include strengthened procedural protections, including independent oversight mechanisms and regular monitoring of their application across different demographic groups.