Proceeding contribution from Lord Kingsland (Conservative) 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
My Lords, we support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, for one simple reason. There must be some limit to the time following the serving of a sentence when a VOO can be imposed. If there is no limit, for the rest of someone’s life—it could be 20 or 30 years—there is always the possibility that a penalty might be imposed; not for committing another offence but simply because of an assertion that there is a real risk that he might commit some other offence. That is fundamentally wrong. We can have an argument about what the limitation period should be. We believe that 10 years is an adequate time. For that reason we are strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 700 c1560
- 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 22:02:20 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_465491
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_465491
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_465491