tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6110794854146484721.post1603493338513764820..comments2024-03-29T08:05:56.264+00:00Comments on Law and Lawyers: The "Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill" - A Quick Glance - a lot to look at and much unhappinessObiterJhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04544226917595022902noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6110794854146484721.post-3751983387115702842011-06-23T11:28:40.948+01:002011-06-23T11:28:40.948+01:00The drafting of Clause 114 is not the clearest I h...The drafting of Clause 114 is not the clearest I have ever seen. It looks as if Cl 114(3) enables Ministers to make offences imprisonable on summary conviction and also to make the maximum sentence under 6 months.<br /><br />In fact, Cl 114 is similar (but not identical to) CJA 2003 s.283 (which has not been implemented and will be repealed).<br /><br />The Lord Chancellor will - by Cl 116 - have almost full control of when this Act comes into force. Thus, Cl 71 will be implemented at his discretion. As he makes each change, he will be able to use Cl 114(3) to alter the sentencing powers.ObiterJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04544226917595022902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6110794854146484721.post-67974154212579837842011-06-23T11:07:31.999+01:002011-06-23T11:07:31.999+01:00I agree that clause 114 reflects a dangerous trend...I agree that clause 114 reflects a dangerous trend in the way government acts to override legislation passed by parliament. <br /><br />I am not so sure that it will "have significant impact on the powers of Magistrates' Courts". What in particular, and in practice, do you think might happen in this respect ?call it justicehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09863682494068974977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6110794854146484721.post-10768903899417373232011-06-23T09:52:39.402+01:002011-06-23T09:52:39.402+01:00The present Lord Chief Justice is on record as ask...The present Lord Chief Justice is on record as asking Ministers not to enact more "Henry VIII powers." They are not listening to him. Ministers love these powers. More power to their elbow. <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/jul/15/law-kenneth-clarke-henry-viii" rel="nofollow">The Guardian 15th July 2010</a> and see also <a href="http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2011/03/01/henry-viii-powers-to-be-dropped/" rel="nofollow">UK Human Rights Blog</a>.<br /><br />The fact remains that the executive has excessive control over Parliamentary business and these clauses, tucked away in the smaller print of a Bill, frequently get enacted.<br /><br />The other point relates to commencement orders. Parliament enacts something but leaves it to Ministers to actually bring it into force using a commencement order. This device certainly enables Ministers to avoid implementing things which either they or their officials dislike. It is up to Parliament to press Ministers as to why they did not implement things. However, I don't suppose for a moment that much will be said about abandoning the increase in magistrates' courts powers. Without a serious revisting of legal aid provision in the magistrates courts, the proposals ought not, in my view, to have been implemented anyway.ObiterJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04544226917595022902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6110794854146484721.post-87033347536031456692011-06-22T22:03:49.094+01:002011-06-22T22:03:49.094+01:00It's no surprise that the extra sentencing pow...It's no surprise that the extra sentencing powers will be repealed - at the 'Breaking the Cycle' open consultation meeting I attended the MoJ policy-makers specifically said that unactivated clauses in CJA 2003 were on the hit-list, and it didn't take much imagination to put two and two together. Whatever the politicians say, the MoJ policy chiefs intensely dislike the lay bench and any increase in its powers would be anathema to them.<br /><br />On an associated point: 'Henry VIII' powers seem to me to circumvent the will of Parliament for political expediency. The extra sentencing powers for magistrates are a case in point in reverse, if you will - Parliament voted for them, but the Secretary of State sat on them. How can that be right?EastMidsJPnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6110794854146484721.post-60902458334978588772011-06-22T11:38:41.424+01:002011-06-22T11:38:41.424+01:00During yesterday's mamouth statement by Kennet...During yesterday's mamouth statement by Kenneth Clarke, Sadiq Khan raied the issue of the title of the Bill having been changed.<br /><br />I agree with your statement: "This Bill is likely to take quite some time to pass through Parliament".<br /><br />Perhaps, this Bill should instead have been 3 separate Bills?<br /><br />In any event, I feel that given the vague wording of Part 3, Chapter 5, that this section should be a separate Bill dealing with real work for prisoners for real wages. I don't suppose prison governors will like the idea of becoming tax collectors for the government.jailhouselawyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03795278184797990706noreply@blogger.com