Clause 1 - Extension of powers to stop and search
Criminal Justice Bill
11:00 am
Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield, Conservative)
The hon. Gentleman has raised an interesting issue. I fully understand why the Government have attempted to tackle that issue by amending the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. As I understand it, the intention behind the Government's proposals is to include objects that might be used to destroy or damage property as a legitimate ground for search and seizure. The amendment would widen the scope of prohibited articles. The problem is that PACE splits the articles that may be seized into two categories.
Section 1(6) states:
''If in the course of such a search a constable discovers an article which he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be a stolen or prohibited article or an article to which subsection (8A) below applies, he may seize it.''
Subsection (7) continues:
''An article is prohibited . . . if it is-
(a) an offensive weapon; or
(b) an article-
(i) made or adapted for use in the course of or in connection with an offence to which this sub-paragraph applies, or
(ii) intended by the person having it with him for such use by him or by some other person.''
The offences to which paragraph (b)(i) applies are burglary, theft, motor vehicle taking or obtaining property by deception.
I should like to remind myself for a moment of past practice in the Crown court, when I appeared there prosecuting or defending. My understanding of the drafting of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, although it is not always easy to follow, is that, first, it categorised certain items as offence weapons, and I do not think that anyone has a problem with that because the categories are well defined. Secondly, it includes articles made or adapted for use in the course of particular offences, such as jemmies for burglary and various articles that we know from experience are likely to be used, in the course of theft, for taking vehicles, such as car keys and other devices that can be used to unlock disabling mechanisms.
The problem with the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North is that almost any item can be used to do criminal damage, including, I suppose, this volume of ''Archbold''. If someone with a greenhouse wants me to demonstrate how it could be used for such a purpose, I would not have too much difficulty. We must be careful about what we are trying to achieve.