Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Thomas of Gresford (Liberal Democrat) 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 respectfully point out that subsection (3) says that the order under the "““section may contain … such prohibitions, restrictions or requirements … and such other terms … as the court considers appropriate””." It does not prevent a house-arrest order being made. For example, in the case of a sex-offender, the appropriate order might—rightly or wrongly—be to restrict them to their homes, if this legislation goes through. Another way is restricting them from dealing with their assets—their bank accounts and so on. A third way is to prevent them from travelling, whether to the next town or outside this country. Another way would be to impose curfews. The restrictions that can be imposed are absolutely open ended. The noble Baroness has talked about tailoring; the judge will tailor the order to the particular problem that the defendant poses. This is incredible. The more we look at it, particularly with reverse burdens of proof, the more incredible it appears.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
690 c247 
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