header-logo header-logo

15 February 2007 / Andrew Keogh
Issue: 7260 / Categories: Features
printer mail-detail

Crime Brief

VIOLENT CRIME REDUCTION ACT 2006 >>
DISCLOSURE NOTICES >>
CASE DIGEST >>

VIOLENT CRIME REDUCTION ACT 2006

The following sections come in to force on 12th February 2007:
Section 42

Amends ss 139(6)(b) and 139A(5)(a)(ii) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 so that the maximum term of imprisonment for the offences of having an article with a blade or point in a public place, or of having such an article or another offensive weapon on school premises, is increased from two to four years.

Section 55

Provides that where a person is charged in respect of conduct that is an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (SOA 2003) and was an
offence under one of the repealed offences listed in sub-s (2), and the only thing preventing the person being found guilty is that it cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt whether the conduct took place before or after the commencement of SOA 2003, then it shall be conclusively presumed for the purposes of determining the guilt of the defendant that the conduct took place

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll