Clause 33
Policing and Crime Bill
4:00 pm
Vernon Coaker (Minister of State (Policing, Crime & Security), Home Office; Gedling, Labour)
I hesitate to say that we disagree with the hon. Gentleman, but we believe that the amendment is appropriate, proportionate and reasonable. Every piece of legislation conforms to the Human Rights Act 1998, and the assets will have to be released if it is not proportionate to detain them. We are trying to close a loophole, meaning that we can detain the property while an appeal has been applied for or is pending. What we are trying to prevent all along is a case that if a restraint order was overturned and an appeal was made, a person in that case might, in that gap, get rid of the assets and the various goods that they have, to try to circumvent a subsequent confiscation order.
There is a point of difference between us: I believe that the clause is proportionate, while the hon. Member for Hornchurch believes that it is not. I think that it is, because there have been far too many occasions when the appeal process has been used as a way of circumventing the due process of law. In the end, if an appeal is successful, the defendant will be able to get their goods back. It is merely detaining them until such time as we can ensure that, should a confiscation order be made, those goods can be used towards the settlement of that order.