Clause 36
Policing and Crime Bill
10:30 am
Vernon Coaker (Minister of State (Policing, Crime & Security), Home Office; Gedling, Labour)
Amendments 156 to 162, 167 to 171, 173 to 177, 179 to 181, 186 to 190 and 205 to 209 will be to clauses 36 to 38, which relate to confiscation under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. I explained the policy that the amendments address at an earlier sitting so I will be reasonably brief.
The amendments will expand the new powers of search and seizure of property to include other persons holding gifts made by suspects as well as property held by the suspect. Such property, known as tainted gifts, is already included in the confiscation provisions of the 2002 Act. The goal is to prevent a defendant from disposing of their property to avoid confiscation. Law enforcement officers requested the extension of the powers to other persons holding tainted gifts to close a potentially fatal loophole whereby a suspect merely giving property to family members and friends could undermine the viability of the new powers.
Amendment 173 will repeal the existing seizure power in the confiscation provisions. Section 45 of the 2002 Act and the equivalent provisions for Scotland and Northern Ireland provide that property subject to a restraint order may be seized only to prevent its removal from the country. Clauses 36 to 38 provide for more extensive search and seizure powers, which will subsume the existing powers. Their continued existence is therefore not justified and they will be repealed.
Amendments 168 to 171, 187 to 190 and 206 to 209 are minor guiding amendments. The new powers provide for continued detention once the property has been seized. Initially, an officer may detain seized property for 48 hours. If there is no restraint order or if the officer decides not to apply for one, he must apply for a detention order from the magistrates court.
Amendments 169 to 171, 188 to 190 and 207 to 209 provide that any person affected by a detention order can apply for the discharge or variation of it. They may also appeal against any decision made on the order. The persons affected could be the defendant, a third party or the law enforcement officer who applied for the detention order. I know that the hon. Member for Hornchurch, in some of the amendments that he has tabled, is concerned by the level of judicial oversight, rather than the principle behind the Bill. The hon. Member for Chesterfield is also concerned about that, and we will discuss that with other amendments. I just wanted to highlight that particular section as I will mention it in regard to the ability to vary orders, to appeal against orders and so on, but that is a debate for later amendments.
Government amendments 168, 187 and 206 explicitly provide that a magistrates court cannot advise the continued extension of what is known and defined in the Bill as “exempt property”. “Exempt property” is defined in new section 47C(4) and includes items necessary for a person’s personal use in his or her business location or employment. It also includes:
“clothing, bedding, furniture, household equipment, provisions or other things as are necessary for satisfying the basic domestic needs of the defendant and the defendant’s family.”
Upon seizure, the officer can seize any property held by the defendant, or by the recipient of a tainted gift from the defendant, except cash and exempt property. Exempt property therefore, should not be seized, but it is an important additional safeguard that the court takes account of this issue. There is another protection to ensure that the seizure powers are being used proportionately and correctly. It is obviously important that seizure is not used to deprive a person of their ability to live. There are similar exemptions in respect to bailiffs and insolvency law. So, there are established precedents that we have tried to use with respect to this particular measure. The same amendment is made for the three UK jurisdictions, which is why we get triple the number.
Government amendment 344, which is consequential to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, merely makes repeals to the Act consequential and necessary due to the other amendments that I have spoken to in this group.