Protection of Freedoms Bill

This is also a minor drafting amendment, but I suspect that I shall have to speak to it at greater length. It concerns the scope of ““such”” in the clause. It is very hard to divine in English what preceding part of the clause ““such”” is meant to apply to. Clearly, it can go further than the preceding noun. For example, if I were to say, ““Some Peers make marmalade; such marmalade is highly prized””, that ““such”” would clearly apply to marmalade made by Peers and not just to marmalade. However, one can stretch the elastic too far and in that case ““such”” would seem to apply only to the closing words of a phrase. That is the difference that I have with the drafters of this clause. Clause 33(3) says: "““The surveillance camera code is admissible in evidence in any such proceedings””." Does ““such”” mean ““criminal and civil proceedings”” or does it mean the whole of subsection (2)? This is a moot point. If you put the two subsections together and read straight on, it is absolutely clear in any normal sense of English that ““such”” refers to the whole of the preceding sentence, but the drafters say that by separating it into two subsections, the ““such”” applies only to ““criminal or civil proceedings””. That is a difficult argument. The additional separation is small and ““such”” requires to be construed as if what is being talked about is a subset of the whole, but if you are talking about civil and criminal proceedings, you are really talking about the universe of proceedings. There are no other kinds of legal proceedings; you are talking about every kind of legal proceedings in the common world. You would not need ““such””, you would talk just about proceedings or legal proceedings. For ““such”” to have a meaning in that place—I have read and reread that clause—it must refer to the whole of subsection (2). If it does, it allows the surveillance camera code to be admissible in evidence only in cases brought against a person in connection with their not having obeyed the code, not in all the cases that might otherwise involve parking or other aspects of criminal and civil behaviour where the code might be relevant. ““Such”” greatly restricts the use of the code. I am clear from my discussions with the Home Office that it intends subsection (3) to be wide—that is, it should apply to any criminal or civil proceedings. It would be much clearer for anyone subsequently reading the Bill if that is what it said, rather than ““such””. I beg to move.