Clause 33
Policing and Crime Bill
4:00 pm
James Brokenshire (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Hornchurch, Conservative)
I will compile my comments to amendments 153, 155, 172, 192 and 210, which all cover the same point, but one that is reflected in different parts of the Bill. The current provisions provide for the continuing detention of seized assets where a restraint order has been recalled or varied and detention is no longer applied. In the case of amendment 153, and as reflected in the other similar amendments that I referred to, and notwithstanding the decision of judicial authorities, the assets can continue to be detained until the time when there is no further possibility of an appeal or a review of the court’s decision. I question how that can be appropriate, proportionate or reasonable. It is not even a requirement that the relevant authorities have to intend to appeal or seek a review. As I read it, they can simply hold on to the assets until whatever time they see fit.
I question the need for such a measure, particularly if a legal authority has taken the view that the order should no longer apply. Why then should the assets be, or seemingly be, retained until the right of appeal has lapsed? It almost seems to allow authorities to invoke the power simply at will, if they do not like a decision that has been reached. That does not seem to be right, and I cannot see how it can be compatible with convention rights. It is a serious issue, and one of the points that we have reached where the boundaries that are being pushed are starting to reach the edge of acceptability. The judicial authorities would have reached a conclusion at that point, which may well be subject to appeal, but it seems fundamentally wrong that the local authority can sit on the assets, notwithstanding that a court has effectively said that they no longer need to be detained. Why is that appropriate or necessary? Why should we accept the amendments?