Representations in connection with the
Criminal Justice and Police Bill in relation to Human Rights
In your letter of 15 February you asked for
all representations in relation to Human Rights. Listed below
are all representations that have been received and attached are
copies of these representations where appropriate. Some organisations
have expressed concerns over human rights implications relating
to a number of policy areas and these are listed first under the
heading of general concerns. Representations about each individual
policy area then follow where applicable.
Identified a number of areas in the Bill that
had Human Rights implications including on the spot fines, travel
restriction orders, intimidation of witnesses, local child curfew
schemes, information disclosure measures, and the changes to PACE
that are made in Part IV of the Bill. (attached)
The Law Society
Voiced concerns relating to on the spot fines,
travel restriction orders, the taking and retention of fingerprints
and DNA samples, and additional powers of seizure. (attached)
Crown prosecution Service (attached)
The Criminal Bar Association
The CBA argues that an individual would need
to be warned of the consequences of non-provision of details.
If the alternative is an arrest, there may be issues arising out
of HRA 1998.
The options for paying or going to court will
need to be explained orally and/or in writing.
The CBA suggest that there are HRA `98 implications
around the procedure for detaining a individual prior to issuing
an FPN or making an arrest.
The grounds for the exercise of any discretion
would have to be clear, so that arbitrariness or unfairness be
The CPS suggest that an officer will need to
caution an individual "in order for the evidence supplied
by that individual to be admissible at any future hearing is made
with a view to illustrating that failure to do so will render
the issuance of a ticket unsound."
Those who default on payments may be imprisoned
for a minor offence. This may be a disproportionate punishment
under HRA 1998.
The government's proposal to provide the police
with new powers to close disorderly licensed premises was first
published in April 2000 in the White Paper "Time for Reform:
the Modernisation of our Liquor Licensing laws (Cm 4696)".
A significant majority of the 1214 responses
to the White Paper were not specific about individual elements
of the white paper proposals, and of those that did refer directly
to the policy of providing the police with powers to close disorderly
licensed premises most did not raise human rights issues. Two
replies recieved by the Home Office did raise specific Human Rights
issues, one from the Justices' Clerks' Society and one from Martin
F Walsh of Peel Court Chambers. (Both of these are attached)
In addition to Liberty's concerns the Children's
Rights Alliance made representations on this topic. (attached)
The Confederation of British Industry has raised
the issue in a meeting with officials of whether the disclosure
for the purposes of criminal investigations or proceedings of
information that was acquired for non-criminal purposes would
be a breach of human rights.
Christopher Murray of Kingsley Napley Solicitors
The Society of Editors
Whilst not actually arguing that the proposals
in respect of the treatment of journalistic material breach any
ECHR articles do express concerns about perceived inroads into
press freedom and cite Article 10 (freedom of expression) in this
PACE AND THE
Crown Prosecution Service
Made representations about the levels of authority
for intimate searches. (attached)
Indentified human rights issues relation to
the reviews of detention using video link/telephone. (attached).