Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill [Lords] – in a Public Bill Committee at 6:00 pm on 17 June 2008.
Pat McFadden
Minister of State (Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform) (Employment Relations and Postal Affairs), Member, Labour Party National Executive Committee
The Clause ensures that where the regulator serves a notice of intent on a person prior to imposing a fixed monetary penalty, that person cannot be criminally prosecuted for the same event to which the notice relates during the period within which they can discharge their liability to the penalty. Similarly, a person cannot be prosecuted for the same event if they discharge their liability to the penalty or the regulator decides to go ahead and impose it. That is down to familiar reasons of Double Jeopardy. Unpaid monetary penalties will be forced through the civil courts. The Bill, and clause 52 in particular, will ensure that regulators have access to an efficient and streamlined procedure for recovering monetary penalties.
A parliamentary bill is divided into sections called clauses.
Printed in the margin next to each clause is a brief explanatory `side-note' giving details of what the effect of the clause will be.
During the committee stage of a bill, MPs examine these clauses in detail and may introduce new clauses of their own or table amendments to the existing clauses.
When a bill becomes an Act of Parliament, clauses become known as sections.
A parliamentary bill is divided into sections called clauses.
Printed in the margin next to each clause is a brief explanatory `side-note' giving details of what the effect of the clause will be.
During the committee stage of a bill, MPs examine these clauses in detail and may introduce new clauses of their own or table amendments to the existing clauses.
When a bill becomes an Act of Parliament, clauses become known as sections.
The phrase stems from the 5th Amendment of the US Constitution; prohibiting individuals from being subject for the same offence to be "twice put in jeopardy of life and limb", and refers, in the strict sense, to three protections: protection from being retried for the same crime after an acquittal; protection from retrial after a conviction; and protection from being punished multiple times for the same offense.
When employed strictly, the mechanism can be used as a defense - for example, the policemen who beat up black motorist Rodney King in 1991 in Los Angeles, CA, were acquitted of assault in a county court, and as a result, could not be tried for those crimes in Federal court, and mirror court cases in the Southern United states in the 1960s where racially motivated crimes were not actively prosecuted nor convicted in local courts. A more pronounced example is that of U.S. citizen and terrorist Timothy McVeigh; sentenced to death for murdering eight U.S. federal employees with a bomb (as federal law only covers the federal employees killed in the explosion, a state court could have tried him for the deaths of the other hundred.
In 2003, Home Secretary David Blunkett abolished this strict form of double jeopardy; retrials are now allowed if there is 'new and compelling evidence'.
In addition, an optional protocol (specifically, the Seventh Protocol, Article Four) of the European Convention of Human Rights, which protects against double jeopardy, states: "No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings under the jurisdiction of the same State for an offence for which he has already been finally acquitted or convicted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of that State."; only Belgium, Germany, The Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom have not ratified this optional convention.
