We on these Benches wholly support the amendment. The use of the expression ““examples”” introduces an entirely vague concept, and the net result of Clause 1 as it stands in relation to Clause 5 is that it gives the judge complete control over any type of restriction, requirement or prohibition that he chooses to impose. That is not right. I have the highest regard for High Court judges, of course, but it is not right to give such power over the individual to a judge in such circumstances. Then there are simply set out examples, which of course include house arrest—the Minister looks upset at that, but why doesn’t she face it? It is house arrest to restrict the use of any premises by an individual and to restrict an individual’s travel. This provision can be used in that way in what a judge thinks is an appropriate case. If the Minister does not like emotive expressions, I am sorry, but that is what it means.
Serious Crime Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Thomas of Gresford
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 7 March 2007.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Serious Crime Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
690 c262 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 12:07:07 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_382742
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_382742
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_382742