---

Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill

moved Amendment No. 59: 59: Clause 17, leave out Clause 17 The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Clause 17 amends Section 229 of the 2003 Act, which is a key to this group of clauses. It contains the Government’s definition of dangerousness, which, as anyone who has had anything to do with dangerousness will know, is an extremely elusive subject. Under Section 229 as it stands, the court is bound to assume dangerousness in certain circumstances. That is the effect of subsections (3) and (4) of that section. I need not go into details on that. It is a good example of the Government’s determination back in 2003 to impose their will on the judges. But subsections (3) and (4) are now to be repealed—that is a good thing, too. Instead, we are left with subsection (2). All that it does is to say that the court must take account, when assessing dangerousness, of, "““such information as is available about the nature””," of the offence and that it may take account of any information about the offender, including any previous convictions. I have to ask whether the Government really suppose that judges have not always taken previous convictions into account when assessing dangerousness. Of course they have. What, then, is the point of telling judges that they may do what they have always done? If Clause 17 passes into law, Section 229 will serve no purpose at all. The Government’s attempt in 2003 to define dangerousness has failed and they should recognise that fact. I hope that between now and Third Reading saneness will prevail. There is simply no point in maintaining the shadow of the old Section 229 on the statute book. It should be repealed forthwith. I beg to move.