Clause
44Discretionary
requirements: criminal proceedings and conviction
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
McFadden: The clause ensures that where a business is
required to pay a variable monetary penalty, whether alone or in
combination with non-monetary discretionary requirements or
undertakings, the order made by the Minister must secure that the
person may not be prosecuted at a later date for the same incident of
regulatory non-compliance. This, again, is because of the principle of
freedom from double jeopardy. Variable monetary penalties will be
enforced through the civil courts. The Bill, particularly clause 52, to
which I referred a little while ago, will ensure that regulators have
access to an efficient and streamlined procedure for recovering
monetary
penalties. I
draw attention to clause 44(3), by virtue of which the restriction does
not apply where a non-monetary discretionary requirement is imposed or
an undertaking is accepted without the imposition of a variable
monetary penalty. In such cases, where the business fails to comply
with the sanction—we talked about a business that might have
spilt chemicals on parkland and so on—it may be prosecuted at a
later date for the original offence. The nature of non-monetary
requirements is not as punitive, and therefore we believe that it is
fair to allow regulators to pursue a prosecution in such cases, where a
business fails to comply with the original requirement to restore the
situation. Subsection (4) allows for the period within which criminal
prosecutions may be instituted to be
extended. Question
put and agreed
to. Clause
44 ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clause
45 ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Further
consideration adjourned.—[Alison
Seabeck.] Adjourned
accordingly at twenty-one minutes past Six o’clock
till Thursday 19 June at Nine
o’clock.
| 
