Proceeding contribution from Lord Wallace of Tankerness (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 23 April 2008. It occurred during Debate on bill on Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill.
Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill
moved Amendment No. 96: 96: Clause 96, page 72, line 13, leave out ““the public”” and insert ““a person or specified persons”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, in some respects, this amendment follows on from those that we have just discussed. In the debate on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, I indicated that one problem that we have with the concept of the violent offender order—quite apart from just being sceptical about the whole nature of it—is its broad reach. The risk of serious violent harm which is intended to be addressed by the order could affect, "““the public in the United Kingdom, or … any particular members of the public in the United Kingdom””." Just stating those words shows how broad the scope is of the offender order created by Clause 96. One of my concerns was that if you had a broad area of protection, the nature of the order that a magistrates’ court might impose could in itself be excessively broad to deal with that. In many respects that has been addressed by the amendment just passed by the House and, therefore, that kind of concern no longer exists, given the definitive restrictions and prohibitions which can now be attached to a violent offender order. I believe that it is important to narrow it down further because it is still very wide in its application, and if we are to create an order of this nature, it is important that we identify more specifically and more directly to whom the risk of violence is directed. We acknowledge that there may well be cases where a single person or a group of identifiable individuals could be considered to be at risk of serious harm from the person against whom this order would be directed. In those circumstances, it might be reasonable to provide them with additional legal protection. As I understand the situation, the non-molestation order is limited in scope and reliant on the person, himself or herself, going to court to seek the protection of such an order, whereas the structure of the violent offender order is that the police would take the initiative if there had been a pattern of behaviour which had triggered that particular concern. Therefore, I commend the amendment to your Lordships' House. I believe that it further defines the nature of the violent offender order in general. I beg to move.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 700 c1554
- Session
- 2007-08
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Disciplinary proceedings Data protection Criminal proceedings Crime Armed forces Crimes of violence Court orders Burglary Journalism Offenders Protest Newspaper press Religion Religious buildings Freedom of association Self-defence
- Legislation
- Ecclesiastical Courts Jurisdiction Act 1860
- Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill 2006-07 to 2007-08
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2025-07-09 22:02:14 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_465481
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_465481
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_465481