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]
Yes, I accept that, but is it accepted that these orders can only be used against somebody who has already been prosecuted and served his penalty and invoked as a further punishment? If so, most of their purpose has gone. Is it accepted that that is the only circumstance in which you could satisfy Amendments Nos. 2, 87, 88 and 3?
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 690 c254
- 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_382727
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_382727
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_382727