Proceeding contribution from Earl of Onslow (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 5 February 2008. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee of the Whole House (HL) on Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill.
Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill
I absolutely take the point, but I refer to new paragraph (b), which states: "““the offence, or the combination of the offence and one or more offences associated with it, was so serious that, notwithstanding the age of the offender””," an order under subsection (3)(a) or (b), "““cannot be justified for the offence””." Does that not cover the objection to which the noble Lord reasonably referred?
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 698 c995
- Session
- 2007-08
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Children Criminal proceedings Alcoholic drinks Administration of justice Crimes of violence Alternatives to prison Custodial treatment Advocacy Age of criminal responsibility Inspections Drugs Rehabilitation Prisons Misuse Probation Standards Sentencing Young offenders Prisoner Ombudsman for Northern Ireland Prisons and Probation Ombudsman Youth rehabilitation orders
- Legislation
- Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill 2006-07 to 2007-08
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2026-09-16 08:00:28 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_443242
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_443242
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_443242