Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Henley (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 14 March 2007. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Serious Crime Bill [HL].


Serious Crime Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 82: 82: Clause 26 , page 15, line 28, leave out ““considers to have been”” and insert ““has reasonable grounds for believing was”” The noble Lord said: This is a purely probing amendment about the level of proof the court needs to find before it makes a forfeiture order. Clause 26 gives the court the power to order forfeiture of any item in the possession of the person who is made the subject of an order and who then breaches the order, thereby committing a criminal offence. The court can order the forfeiture of anything that it ““considers”” was involved in the offence. We believe that that is rather wide. Our amendment would allow the court to make a forfeiture order where it had reasonable grounds for believing that the item or items were involved in the offence. That seems a more reasoned and appropriate test. I look forward to hearing what the noble Baroness has to say. I beg to move.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
690 c807 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Criminal proceedings Crime prevention Crime Charities Companies Crown Prosecution Service Firearms Environment Exemptions Insolvency Pollution Property Mental health Poaching Registration Serious Fraud Office Robbery Serious Organised Crime Agency Angling High Court Northern Ireland Department of the Director of Public Prosecutions Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office Serious crime prevention orders
Legislation
Serious Crime Bill (HL) 2006-07
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk