Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Viscount Bledisloe (Crossbench) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 7 March 2007. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Serious Crime Bill [HL].


Serious Crime Bill [HL]

I confess to being confused by the noble Baroness’s remarks. At Second Reading, I thought that this part of the Bill was put forward on the basis that there were people whom you could not get convictions against because you could not get the evidence together, so you would have these orders against them. Now the noble Baroness has said that she is concerned about people who have been convicted but have come out of prison and may resume their behaviour. If that is the case, surely the sentencing court can be given the power to impose orders of this kind as a condition of release. Are we dealing with people who have been convicted and may go back to crime or with people known to have committed crime but who cannot be brought before the criminal courts successfully for lack of admissible evidence?


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
690 c244 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Civil liberties Criminal proceedings Crime prevention Crime Assets Assets Recovery Agency Immigration Large goods vehicles Serious Organised Crime Agency High Court House arrest Serious crime prevention orders Freezing of assets People smuggling
Legislation
Serious Crime Bill (HL) 2006-07
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk