House of Commons portcullis
House of Commons
Session 2005 - 06
Internet Publications
Other Bills before Parliament

Police and Justice Bill


 
 

 

Police and Justice Bill

LORDS non-insistence, AMENDMENTS in lieu, insistences AND

REASONS

[The page and line references are to HL Bill 104, the bill as first printed for the Lords.]

Clause 15

LORDS AMENDMENT 5

5

Leave out Clause 15

 

Commons disagreement and reason

 

The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason—

5A

Because the clause removed by the Lords Amendment would improve the provisions about

 

conditional cautions

 

LORDS NON-INSISTENCE AND AMENDMENTS IN LIEU

 

The Lords do not insist on their Amendment 5 and do propose Amendments 5B to 5H in

 

lieu thereof—

5B

Page 8  , line 33, leave out “as follows” and insert “as set out in subsections (2) to (4)”

5C

Page 9  , line 4, at beginning insert “(subject to section 23A)”

5D

Page 9  , line 4, leave out “(as to which see section 23A)”

5E

Page 9  , leave out lines 18 to 22 and insert—

 

“(1)    

A condition that the offender pay a financial penalty (a “financial penalty

 

condition”) may not be attached to a conditional caution given in respect of

 

an offence unless the offence is one that is prescribed, or of a description

 

prescribed, in an order made by the Secretary of State.

 

(2)    

An order under subsection (1) must prescribe, in respect of each offence or

 

description of offence in the order, the maximum amount of the penalty

 

that may be specified under subsection (5)(a).

 
 
Bill 24154/1

 
 

Police and Justice Bill

2

 
 

(3)    

The amount that may be so prescribed in respect of any offence must not

 

exceed—”

5F

Page 9  , line 25, leave out “£500” and insert “£250”

5G

Page 9  , leave out line 30 and insert—

 

“(5)    

Where a financial penalty condition is attached to a conditional caution, a

 

relevant prosecutor must specify—

 

(a)    

the amount of the penalty,”

5H

Page 10  , line 4, at end insert—

 

“( )    

In section 330 of that Act (orders subject to affirmative resolution

 

procedure), in subsection (5)—

 

(a)    

in paragraph (a), before “section 25(5)” there is inserted—

 

“section 22(3C),”;

 

(b)    

after that paragraph there is inserted—

 

“(aa)    

an order under section 23A(4) which makes

 

provision—

 

(i)    

increasing the fraction in section 23A(3)(a),

 

or

 

(ii)    

increasing the figure in section 23A(3)(b) by

 

more than is necessary to reflect changes in

 

the value of money,”.”

After Clause 46

LORDS AMENDMENT 36

36

Insert the following new Clause—

 

“Designation of Part 2 territories: omission of United States of America

 

In the list of territories in paragraph 3(2) of the Extradition Act 2003

 

(Designation of Part 2 Territories) Order 2003 (S.I. 2003/3334) “the United

 

States of America” is omitted.”

 

COMMONS DISAGREEMENT AND REASON

 

The Commons disgree to this Amendment for the following Reason—

36A

Because it is appropriate for the United States of America to be a designated territory for

 

the purposes of sections 71, 73, 84 and 86 of the Extradition Act 2003

 

lords insistence and reason

 

The Lords insist on their Amendment 36 for the following Reason—

36B

Because it is not appropriate for the United States of America to be a designated territory

 

for the purposes of sections 71, 73, 84 and 86 of the Extradition Act 2003


 
 

Police and Justice Bill

3

 

Schedule 14

LORDS AMENDMENT 81

81

Page 134, line 3, at end insert—

 

“(j)    

forum.”;”

 

Commons disagreement and reason

 

The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason—

81A

Because the Lords Amendment, taken with Lords Amendments Nos. 82 and 83, could cause

 

the United Kingdom to be in breach of existing international agreements and would unduly

 

restrict its ability to enter into further ones

 

lords insistence and reason

 

The Lords insist on their Amendment 81 for the following Reason—

81B

Because it is appropriate that judges should have discretion over requests for extradition in

 

the manner proposed

 

 

Lords Amendment 82

82

Page 134, line 5, leave out “19A”” and insert “19B””

 

Commons disagreement and reason

 

The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason—

82A

Because the Lords Amendment, taken with Lords Amendments Nos. 81 and 83, could cause

 

the United Kingdom to be in breach of existing international agreements and would unduly

 

restrict its ability to enter into further ones

 

lords insistence and reason

 

The Lords insist on their Amendment 82 for the following Reason—

82B

Because it is appropriate that judges should have discretion over requests for extradition in

 

the manner proposed

 

 

Lords Amendment 83

83

Page 134, line 23, at end insert—

 

“19B  

Forum

 

(1)    

If the conduct disclosed by the request was committed

 

partly in the United Kingdom, the judge shall not order

 

the extradition of the person unless it appears in the light

 

of all the circumstances that it would be in the interests of


 
 

Police and Justice Bill

4

 
 

justice that the person should be tried in the category 1

 

territory.

 

(2)    

In deciding whether extradition is in the interests of

 

justice, the judge shall take into account whether the

 

competent United Kingdom authorities have decided to

 

refrain from prosecuting the person whose surrender is

 

sought for the conduct constituting the offence for which

 

extradition is requested.””

 

Commons disagreement and reason

 

The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason—

83A

Because the Lords Amendment, taken with Lords Amendments Nos. 81 and 82, could cause

 

the United Kingdom to be in breach of existing international agreements and would unduly

 

restrict its ability to enter into further ones

 

lords insistence and reason

 

The Lords insist on their Amendment 83 for the following Reason—

83B

Because it is appropriate that judges should have discretion over requests for extradition in

 

the manner proposed

 

 

Lords Amendment 84

84

Page 142, line 5, at end insert—

 

“Bars to extradition

 

    (1)  

Section 79 (bars to extradition) is amended as follows.

 

      (2)  

After paragraph (d) of subsection (1) there is inserted—

 

“(e)    

forum.”

 

      (3)  

In subsection (2), for “83” there is substituted “83A”.

 

      (4)  

After section 83 there is inserted—

 

“83A  

Forum

 

(1)    

If the conduct disclosed by the request was committed partly in

 

the United Kingdom, the judge shall not order the extradition of

 

the person unless it appears in the light of all the circumstances

 

that it would be in the interests of justice that the person should

 

be tried in the category 2 territory.

 

(2)    

In deciding whether extradition is in the interests of justice, the

 

judge shall take into account whether the competent United

 

Kingdom authorities have decided to refrain from prosecuting

 

the person whose surrender is sought for the conduct

 

constituting the offence for which extradition is requested.””


 
 

Police and Justice Bill

5

 
 

Commons disagreement and reason

 

The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason—

84A

Because the Lords Amendment could cause the United Kingdom to be in breach of existing

 

international agreements and would unduly restrict its ability to enter into further ones

 

lords insistence and reason

 

The Lords insist on their Amendment 84 for the following Reason—

84B

Because it is appropriate that judges should have discretion over requests for extradition in

 

the manner proposed


 
 

Police and Justice Bill

6


 
contents
 
House of Commons home page Houses of Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries

© Parliamentary copyright 2006
Revised 2 November 2006