header-logo header-logo

Police Bill endangers travellers’ rights

08 July 2021
Issue: 7940 / Categories: Legal News , Public , Human rights , Criminal
printer mail-detail
Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities are at significant risk of having their human rights breached by legislation to criminalise unauthorised encampments, a Parliamentary committee has warned
In its third report into the controversial Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, the Joint Committee on Human Rights examines Part 4 of the Bill, which relates to encampments. Part 4 introduces a criminal offence of trespass with intent to reside, along with additional police powers to seize mobile homes for up to three months where there is reasonable suspicion this offence has been committed.

The committee found the Bill would create extra burdens on public authorities dealing with people living in unauthorised encampments.

It urged the government instead to reintroduce the statutory duty on local authorities to provide sites for these communities, and to amend the bill so a criminal offence is committed only where an adequate authorised site has been made available.

It called for an amendment so that a caravan cannot be seized if it is a person’s principal home and they would have nowhere else to live. The legislation must be sufficient clear for the police to enforce its provisions, the committee said, and conditions entirely based on potential acts and potential impacts should be removed.

Committee chair Harriet Harman said: ‘This Bill takes a major step in making it a criminal offence for Gypsy, Roma and Travellers communities to be on private land without consent.’

Harman said the committee’s proposals would ensure the human rights of these communities are respected at the same times as landowners have their property rights protected.

The Bill passed its third reading this week. Attention has focused on several controversial aspects, notably extra powers for police to curb protests, including where only one person is protesting, on the basis of ‘noise’; increased powers of stop and search; and up to ten years in prison for damaging a memorial.

Issue: 7940 / Categories: Legal News , Public , Human rights , Criminal
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll