Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Lester of Herne Hill (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 20 October 2009. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Policing and Crime Bill.


Policing and Crime Bill

I am grateful that the Government want to consult; that is always sensible, but perhaps I may deal with a couple of points. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, raised an important question as to whether treating the police differently from ordinary citizens would create a lack of equality before the law. That was the fallacy, if I may say so, in cases such as Malone, where English courts said that the police can tap our telephones just as an ordinary private person can tap our telephones: they are entitled to full equality of treatment, like any other person and there should be no distinction drawn between them. The fallacy is that, of course, the police are not like an ordinary private person—they are public officers of the state, with special powers and special duties. The European Court of Human Rights held that the tapping of telephones by the police—not by private persons, but by the police—had to be regulated by statute and could not be treated as though it were ordinary conduct by private persons. That is fundamental to any constitutional system of government: the agents of the state have special powers and special duties. The second point is that, although the Government may wish to consult, if I am right there is a mismatch between the way that that operates at the moment and the obligations under the human rights convention. Therefore, unfortunately, there will be continuing exposure to the possibility of further humiliation in Strasbourg or by our courts if the point is not addressed. The point about the off-duty constable is very important. Of course, if the constable is not on duty, he is in the same position as a private person. We are discussing the situation where public powers are being used by a public officer on duty. That takes advantage of a loophole sensibly introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for a totally different reason. As for the wording, if the Government want to tackle the problem, there is no problem in my agreeing any wording that they would like to produce something more elegant and workmanlike. This problem will not go away. If there is to be consultation, we should get a move on. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment 159G withdrawn.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
713 c693-4 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Complaints Disclosure of information Criminal records Codes of practice Accountability Crime prevention Crime Bail Demonstrations Assets Costs Confiscation orders Crown dependencies Aircraft Airports Customs officers British Transport Police Department for Transport Crown Court Finance Fees and charges Licensing Extradition Human rights Immigration Genetics Drugs Isle of Man Home Office Independent Police Complaints Commission Ministerial powers Parking Personal records Northern Ireland Police Powers Public appointments Proceeds of crime Property Railway stations Magistrates' courts Proof of identity Police authorities Scotland Vetting Stop and search Republic of Ireland Training Security Trespass Right of search Video recordings Rendition Sex establishments Airspace Common travel area European arrest warrants
Legislation
Policing and Crime Bill 2008-09
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk