To return to the distinction that emerged in the discussion between the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, and the Minister, are there not two quite different situations here? One is the situation where a serious crime prevention order is sought following a conviction, which will have been based on the criminal standard of proof, as that is all that is needed. That seems relatively straightforward and does not seem to raise any problems under Article 6 of the European convention. But you are in a different situation where there is a third party who has not been convicted of an offence and may not have committed one at all. In those circumstances, one needs to be a lot more careful about how the application for an order is handled. Unfortunately, it seems that the Bill does not recognise sufficiently the difference between those two situations.
Serious Crime Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Goodhart
(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].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
690 c245 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 12:07:09 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_382701
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_382701
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_382701