Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Page 1, line 7, leave out “on the balance of probabilities” and insert “beyond
reasonable doubt”

Page 1, line 8, leave out from “conduct” to “(“anti-social” in line 9 and insert “that
had caused, or was likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress”

Page 1, line 10, leave out “just and convenient” and insert “necessary and
proportionate”

Page 3, line 13, at end insert—

“( )   This section will not come into effect until the Secretary of State has
published and laid before both Houses of Parliament guidance on where
the funding for a “person”, as defined in subsection (1), responsible for
supervising a respondent’s compliance with an injunction, will be coming
from to carry out duties as specified in subsection (4).”

Page 6, line 23, at end insert—

“( )   Before this section comes into force, the Secretary of State shall provide
guidance on the length of time that relevant courts will take to reach
decisions on whether or not to issue warrants under this section.”

Page 7, line 16, at end insert “or with any other person”

Page 7, line 17, leave out from beginning to “on”

Page 8, line 8, at end insert—

“( )   Within a year of this section coming into force, the Secretary of State shall
review the length of time taken by consultations under this section with
local youth offending teams.”

Insert the following new Clause—

“Corporate anti-social behaviour order

(1)   It is an offence for a corporate body to act in a manner that caused or was
likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to one or more persons.

(2)   In this section “corporate body” has the same meaning as in Part 12 of the
Corporation Tax Act 2009 (see section 1005 of that Act).

(3)   The Secretary of State shall, by regulations, set out the circumstances under
which an offence has been committed under subsection (1).”

Page 14, line 1, at end insert—

“( )   The Secretary of State shall produce guidance on the scope of requirements
that can be used under this section.”

Page 18, line 38, at end insert—

“and once the relevant local authority has been consulted.”

The above-named Lords give notice of their intention to oppose the Question that Clause 32
stand part of the Bill.

Page 108, line 4, at end insert—

“( )   in subsection (4), for “7” substitute “14”;”

Insert the following new Clause—

“Discretion to refuse extradition where requested person wanted under
European arrest warrant is a British national or resident

After section 20 of the Extradition Act 2003 there is inserted—

“20A          Service of sentence in United Kingdom

(1)   If the judge is required to proceed under this section, he must
decide whether the person is a United Kingdom national or a
resident of the United Kingdom.

(2)   If the judge decides the question in subsection (1) in the negative, he
must proceed under section 21.

(3)   If the judge decides that question in the affirmative, he must decide
whether it is possible for the person to serve the sentence in the
United Kingdom.

(4)   If the judge decides the question in subsection (3) in the negative, he
must proceed under section 21.

(5)   If the judge decides that question in the affirmative, he must decide
whether the person consents to serve the sentence for which his
extradition is sought in the United Kingdom.

(6)   If the judge decides the question in subsection (5) in the negative, he
must proceed under section 21.

(7)   If the judge decides that question in the affirmative, he may refuse
extradition provided that he orders the person to serve the sentence
(or to complete the service of the sentence) in the United Kingdom.

(8)   Where the judge makes an order under subsection (7), he shall issue
a warrant authorising the person’s detention in the United
Kingdom and containing any provisions which the judge considers
appropriate for giving effect to the sentence which gave rise to the
proceedings (or the portion of the sentence remaining unserved).””

Insert the following new Clause—

“Request of further information where suspicion of mistaken identity

In section 7 of the Extradition Act 2003 (identity of person arrested), after
subsection (4) there is inserted—

“(4A)    If the judge decides that question in the affirmative, he must decide
whether the person in respect of whom the warrant was issued is
the person who is alleged to have committed, or to have been
convicted for, the offence on which the warrant is based.

(4B)   The judge must decide the question in subsection (4A) on the
balance of probabilities, but if he considers there is reasonable
doubt as to that question, he may not decide it in the affirmative
unless he has first requested the issuing authority to provide
further information within the time specified in the request (which
must not be less than a reasonable time in all the circumstances) and
the issuing authority has provided him with the information
requested within that time.

(4C)   If the judge decides the question in subsection (4A) in the negative,
he must order the person’s discharge.””

Insert the following new Clause—

“Effective refusal grounds for breach of human rights

After section 21B of the Extradition Act 2003 there is inserted—

“21C          Human rights: legal and evidential standards

(1)   This section applies if the judge is required, under section 21 or 21A,
to determine whether extradition would be compatible with the
Convention rights.

(2)   The person’s extradition would not be compatible with the
Convention rights if—

(a)   there is a real risk that the person, if surrendered, would be
subject to treatment in the category 1 territory that, if taking
place in the United Kingdom, would be an act or omission
made unlawful by section 6 of the 1998 Act;

(b)   in relation to the matters giving rise to the Part 1 warrant,
the person has previously been subject to treatment that, if
taking place in the United Kingdom, would be an act or
omission made unlawful by section 6 of the 1998 Act; or

(c)   the person’s removal from the United Kingdom would be
incompatible with the Convention rights.

(3)   The judge shall not treat a matter set out in subsection (2)(a) or (b)
as established unless there is material before him on which a court
might reasonably so conclude; but if there is such material before
him, he shall treat that matter as established unless satisfied to the
contrary.

(4)   For the purposes of subsection (3), the judge shall have regard to—

(a)   judgments issued by the European Court of Human Rights
against the category 1 territory under Article 46 of the
Convention (pilot judgment);

(b)   the existence of proceedings under Article 226 of the Treaty
on the Functioning of the European Union against the
category 1 territory in respect of measures adopted under
Article 82(2) of that Treaty, and any judgment given by the
Court of Justice of the European Union in such
proceedings.””

Page 180, line 9, leave out paragraphs 24 to 27