Proceeding contribution from Lord Mayhew of Twysden (Conservative) 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]
The Minister has been patience personified and I wonder if I may stretch it a tiny bit longer by asking if she agrees that even Mr Big, assuming that he is properly identified as such, has his rights. I bring her back to the question put to her more than once by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, arising from the decision of the Judicial Committee of this House in McCann. In answer to his point she said that even the House of Lords Judicial Committee did not stipulate that an ASBO was a criminal order. I suggest that it does not matter what label you tie around his neck; what matters is the effect the order has upon the person who is made subject to it. If, in the case of an ASBO, the effect is held by the courts to be so serious as to warrant the criminal standard of proof, why is that not going to be their view if this amendment is not carried?
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 690 c250
- 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
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 12:07:06 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_382715
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_382715
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_382715