Q
161James
Brokenshire: It has been explained as a tidying up
exercise. Do you share that
view? Anita
Coles: I think it goes a bit further than just
tidying up. It is giving new powers and more explanation is needed as
to why that is necessary. The explanatory notes talk about having a
code of practice to ensure that the exercise of the powers is conducted
appropriately. I do not think that it is appropriate that monitoring
that should be left to this sort of secondary mechanism. Parliament
should consider the matter carefully before giving extra
powers.
Martin
Evans: The Bar Council’s view is that several
clauses within the Bill represent a great deal more than merely tidying
up. It would be wrong to characterise it as simply sorting out problems
that have arisen in practice. One final example with regard to cash
detention is that it is proposed that a forfeiture order can be made on
the application by an officer. It would be for the person whose cash it
was, from whom it has been taken, to prove to the civil standard that
the cash was not either recoverable property or intended for use in
unlawful conduct. That reverses the burden of proof and puts it on the
person from whom the money has been taken. With respect, that does not
represent tidying up; it is a
change.
The
Chairman: Thank you very much. This is the appropriate
time at which to bring our proceedings to an end. I thank our
witnesses, Mr. Martin Evans, Mr. Peter Lodder,
Shami Chakrabarti and Anita Coles very much for the assistance that
they have given to the Committee this morning. They have given full,
frank and most helpful answers to the many questions that have been
asked and I speak on behalf of all the Committee from the Chair in
saying that we are grateful for the help that you have given to the
Committee.
10.25
am The
Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put
(Standing Order No.
88). Adjourned
till this day at One
o’clock.
| 
