House of Commons Amendments

House of Commons

Session 2007 - 08
Internet Publications
Other Bills before Parliament

181

House of Commons

Thursday 8th May 2008

Public Bill Committee

New Amendments handed in are marked thus

Other Amendments not tabled within the required notice period are marked thus

Counter-Terrorism Bill

Note

The Amendments have been arranged in accordance with the Order of the

Committee [22nd April 2008].

Mr Tony McNulty

That the Order of the Committee [22nd April 2008] be amended as follows:

In paragraph (1)(e) leave out ‘1.00 p.m.’ and insert ‘2.00 p.m.’.

Mr Dominic Grieve

Mr Crispin Blunt

Patrick Mercer

Mr Elfyn Llwyd

90

Clause  23,  page  16,  line  21,  leave out subsection (2) and insert—

‘(2)
Subject to subsections (3) to (6), a constable may question a person about a

related terrorism offence where the person has already been charged with, or been

officially informed that they may be prosecuted for, a terrorism offence.’.

Patrick Mercer

Mr Dominic Grieve

Mr Elfyn Llwyd

125

Clause  23,  page  16,  line  21,  leave out subsection (2) and insert—

‘(2A)
Subject to subsections (2B) to (2E) a constable may question a person about a

related terrorism offence where the person has already been charged with, or been

officially informed that they may be prosecuted for, a terrorism offence.

Public Bill Committee: 8th May 2008
182

Counter-Terrorism Bill, continued

(2B)
A police officer of at least the rank of superintendent may make an application to

a judge of the High Court for permission to allow a constable to question a person

under subsection (2), if the police officer reasonably believes that the person may

be charged with a related terrorism offence.

(2C)
A judge may grant permission for further questioning under subsection (2) only

if satisfied by evidence that:

(a)
there are reasonable grounds for believing that the original charge was

appropriate to bring; and

(b)
it is in the interests of justice to allow further questioning in the

circumstances.

(2D)
Where a judge grants permission for further questioning under subsection (2C) he

shall make such directions as he considers appropriate with regard to:

(a)
the maximum permitted period for further questioning;

(b)
the total length of time over which further questioning is permitted; or

(c)
any other directions as required in the interests of justice.

(2E)
A related terrorism offence means a terrorism offence arising in whole or in part

from the same set of facts as the offence with which the person has already been

charged, or officially informed that they may be prosecuted.’.

Tom Brake

Mr David Heath

14

Clause  23,  page  16,  line  25,  after ‘offence’, insert ‘, at any time up to the

commencement of the trial,’.

Mr Dominic Grieve

Mr Crispin Blunt

Patrick Mercer

91

Clause  23,  page  16,  line  26,  after ‘a’, insert ‘related’.

Tom Brake

Mr David Heath

15

Clause  23,  page  16,  line  26,  leave out ‘or’ and insert ‘and’.

Tom Brake

Mr David Heath

17

Clause  23,  page  16,  line  32,  at end insert—

‘(iii)
has, after satisfying himself that the original charge was

appropriate and that further questioning would be in the interests

of justice, given authority for the constable to question the

person.’.

Mr Dominic Grieve

Mr Crispin Blunt

Patrick Mercer

Mr Elfyn Llwyd

92

Clause  23,  page  16,  line  32,  at end insert—

‘(3A)
A police officer of at least the rank of superintendent may make an application to

a judge of the High Court for permission to allow a constable to question a person

Public Bill Committee: 8th May 2008
183

Counter-Terrorism Bill, continued

under subsections (2) and (3) above if the police officer believes that the person

may be charged with a related terrorism offence.

(3B)
A judge may grant permission for further questioning under subsection (2) and

(3) only if he is satisfied by evidence that—

(a)
there are reasonable grounds for believing that the original charge was

appropriate to bring;

(b)
it is in the interests of justice to allow further questioning in the

circumstances; and

(c)
that further questioning would not be oppressive.

(3C)
Where a judge grants permission for further questioning under subsection (3B) he

shall make such directions as he considers appropriate with regard to—

(a)
the maximum permitted period for further questioning;

(b)
the total length of time over which further questioning is permitted; or

(c)
any other directions in the interests of justice,


and these directions shall be subject to variation on application by either party to

the same court.

(3D)
A “related terrorism offence” means a terrorism offence arising in whole or in

part from the same set of facts as the offence with which the person has already

been charged, or officially informed that they may be prosecuted.’.

Tom Brake

Mr David Heath

16

Clause  23,  page  16,  line  34,  leave out ‘may’ and insert ‘must’.

Tom Brake

Mr David Heath

Mr Elfyn Llwyd

18

Clause  23,  page  16,  line  35,  at end insert—

‘(4A)
Codes of practice made under subsection (4) must include provision for—

(a)
questioning to take place only in the presence of a lawyer representing

the interests of the accused person;

(b)
a transcript to be made available to the judge authorising the questioning

under subsection (3);

(c)
the questioning to be subject to a video recording;

(d)
for the purpose of the questioning to be confined to questioning about

new evidence which has become available since the accused person was

charged; and

(e)
preventing oppressive questioning by specifying appropriate time limits.

(4B)
Prior to the commencement of the trial the judge must review any transcripts

made available to him under subsection (4A)(b) having regard to subsections

(4A)(d) and (e).’.

Tom Brake

Mr David Heath

19

Clause  23,  page  17,  line  2,  leave out subsections (6) and (7).

Public Bill Committee: 8th May 2008
184

Counter-Terrorism Bill, continued

Mr Dominic Grieve

Mr Crispin Blunt

Patrick Mercer

93

Clause  25,  page  17,  line  29,  after second ‘a’, insert ‘related’.

Mr Dominic Grieve

Mr Crispin Blunt

Patrick Mercer

97

Clause  25,  page  17,  line  29,  leave out subsection (2) and insert—

‘(2)
Subject to subsections (3) to (6), a constable may question a person about a

related terrorism offence where the person has already been charged with, or been

officially informed that they may be prosecuted for, a terrorism offence.’.

Tom Brake

Mr David Heath

21

Clause  25,  page  17,  line  32,  at end insert ‘, at any time up to the commencement of

the trial,’.

Tom Brake

Mr David Heath

22

Clause  25,  page  17,  line  32,  at end insert ‘, and

(c)
a judge of the Crown Court has, after satisfying himself that the original

charge was appropriate and that further questioning would be in the

interests of justice, given authority for the constable to question the

person.’.

Mr Dominic Grieve

Mr Crispin Blunt

Patrick Mercer

Mr Elfyn Llwyd

98

Clause  25,  page  17,  line  32,  at end insert—

‘(2A)
A police officer of at least the rank of superintendent may make an application to

a judge of the High Court for permission to allow a constable to question a person

under subsection (2) above if the police officer believes that the person may be

charged with a related terrorism offence.

(2B)
A judge may grant permission for further questioning under subsection (2) only

if he is satisfied by evidence that—

(a)
there are reasonable grounds for believing that the original charge was

appropriate to bring;

(b)
it is in the interests of justice to allow further questioning in the

circumstances; and

(c)
that further questioning would not be oppressive.

(2C)
Where a judge grants permission for further questioning under subsection (2B) he

shall make such directions as he considers appropriate with regard to—

(a)
the maximum permitted period for further questioning;

(b)
the total length of time over which further questioning is permitted; or

(c)
any other directions in the interests of justice,

Public Bill Committee: 8th May 2008
185

Counter-Terrorism Bill, continued


and these directions shall be subject to variation on application by either party to

the same court.

(2D)
A “related terrorism offence” means a terrorism offence arising in whole or in

part from the same set of facts as the offencfe with which the person has already

been charged, or officially informed that they may be prosecuted.’.

Tom Brake

Mr David Heath

23

Clause  25,  page  17,  line  34,  leave out ‘may’ and insert ‘must’.

Tom Brake

Mr David Heath

24

Clause  25,  page  17,  line  36,  at end insert—

‘(3A)
Codes of practice made under subsection (3) must include provision for—

(a)
questioning to take place only in the presence of a lawyer representing

the interests of the accused person;

(b)
a transcript to be made available to the judge authorising the questioning

under subsection (3);

(c)
the questioning to be subject to a video recording;

(d)
for the purpose of the questioning to be confined to questioning about

new evidence which has become available since the accused person was

charged; and

(e)
preventing oppressive questioning by specifying appropriate time limits.

(3B)
Prior to the commencement of the trial the judge must review any transcripts

made available to him under subsection (3A)(b) having regard to subsections

(3A)(d) and (e).’.

Tom Brake

Mr David Heath

25

Clause  25,  page  18,  line  1,  leave out subsections (5) and (6).

Mr Tony McNulty

135

Clause  26,  page  18,  line  38,  leave out from ‘things)’ to end of line 39.

Tom Brake

Mr David Heath

26

Clause  26,  page  19,  line  11,  at end insert—

(e)
the common law offences of murder, manslaughter, culpable homicide,

kidnapping or abduction, in relation to an offence listed in subsection (1)

above.’.

Public Bill Committee: 8th May 2008
186

Counter-Terrorism Bill, continued

Mr Dominic Grieve

Mr Crispin Blunt

166

Clause  27,  page  20,  line  17,  leave out subsection (4).

Mr Dominic Grieve

Mr Crispin Blunt

168

Clause  27,  page  20,  line  18,  leave out subsection (5).

Mr Tony McNulty

136

Clause  27,  page  20,  line  18,  at end insert—

‘( )
The power conferred by subsection (4) may be exercised so as to add offences to

subsection (2) or (3) only if it appears to the Secretary of State necessary to do so

for the purpose of dealing with terrorism.’.

Mr Dominic Grieve

Mr Crispin Blunt

167

Clause  27,  page  20,  line  19,  leave out subsection (6).

Patrick Mercer

Mr Dominic Grieve

126

Clause  27,  page  20,  line  19,  after ‘offence’, insert ‘with terrorism connections’.

Tom Brake

Mr David Heath

50

Clause  27,  page  20,  line  20,  at end add—

‘(7)
Where this section applies to an offence committed in Scotland, proceedings may

only be taken in another part of the United Kingdom following consultation with,

and with the consent of, the Lord Advocate.’.

Mr Tony McNulty

76

Clause  29,  page  20,  line  32,  after ‘If’ insert ‘having regard to the material before it

for the purposes of sentencing’.

Tom Brake

Mr David Heath

Patrick Mercer

Mr Dominic Grieve

Mr Elfyn Llwyd

27

Clause  29,  page  20,  line  33,  leave out ‘court’ and insert ‘jury’.

Public Bill Committee: 8th May 2008
187

Counter-Terrorism Bill, continued

Patrick Mercer

Mr Dominic Grieve

Mr Elfyn Llwyd

128

Clause  29,  page  20,  line  34,  after ‘and’, insert ‘the jury’.

Patrick Mercer

Mr Dominic Grieve

Mr Elfyn Llwyd

129

Clause  29,  page  20,  line  37,  leave out first ‘court’ and insert ‘jury’.

Tom Brake

Mr David Heath

28

Clause  29,  page  20,  line  37,  leave out ‘determines’ and insert ‘is satisfied beyond

reasonable doubt’.

Mr Dominic Grieve

Mr Crispin Blunt

169

Clause  29,  page  20,  line  40,  leave out subsection (5).

Mr Tony McNulty

137

Schedule  2,  page  71,  line  33,  leave out paragraph (b).

Mr Dominic Grieve

Mr Crispin Blunt

170

Clause  32,  page  22,  line  1,  leave out from ‘used’ to ‘for’ in line 2.

Patrick Mercer

Mr Dominic Grieve

130

Clause  32,  page  22,  line  5,  leave out ‘or under their control’.

Mr Dominic Grieve

Mr Crispin Blunt

171

Clause  32,  page  22,  line  8,  leave out ‘or had reasonable cause to suspect’.

Patrick Mercer

Mr Dominic Grieve

131

Clause  32,  page  22,  line  9,  leave out ‘or might’.