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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll