Joint Committee On Human Rights Minutes of Evidence

Annex A

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 avoided.

  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 (attached)

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 context. (attached)


Crown Prosecution Service

  Made representations about the levels of authority for intimate searches. (attached)

Police Federation

  Indentified human rights issues relation to the reviews of detention using video link/telephone. (attached).

previous page contents next page

House of Lords home page Parliament home page House of Commons home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2001
Prepared 13 March 2001