header-logo header-logo

11 November 2020
Issue: 7910 / Categories: Legal News , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail

Secret agent Bill open to abuse

Planned legislation on secret agents and undercover officers creates a risk of state-sanctioned rape, murder and torture, MPs and Peers have warned

A Joint Committee on Human Rights report, ‘Legislative scrutiny: Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill’, published this week, has delivered a devastating verdict on the Bill, as it stands.

The Bill, which was introduced in the House of Commons in September, provides a statutory basis for a wide range of public authorities to authorise informants, agents and undercover officers to engage in criminal conduct. Where an authorisation has been given, a prosecutor is unlikely to proceed with a prosecution after weighing up the public interest.

The committee concluded the Bill lacks the adequate safeguards and oversight to prevent it being abused.

Harriet Harman QC MP, chair of the committee, said: ‘This Bill raises major human rights concerns.

‘It permits officials to secretly authorise crimes on the streets of the UK and abroad. There should be added to the Bill clear limits on the scale and type of criminality which can be authorised.

‘The power to authorise crime should be restricted to the public authorities whose role it is to combat serious crime and protect national security and not include bodies such as the Food Standards Agency or the Gambling Commission.’

In particular, the committee warned there was no express limit in the Bill on the type of criminal conduct that could be authorised, raising the ‘abhorrent possibility of serious crimes such as rape, murder or torture being carried out under an authorisation’.

‘Rigorous and effective oversight’ was required for a power as exceptional as the authorisation of criminal conduct, granting criminal and civil immunity. While the Investigatory Powers Commissioner provided oversight, this did not go far enough, the committee said. ‘As is required for other investigatory powers, authorising a person to engage in criminal conduct should require prior judicial approval.’

Issue: 7910 / Categories: Legal News , Constitutional law
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

International arbitration team strengthened by double partner hire

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Firm celebrates trio holding senior regional law society and junior lawyers division roles

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Partner joins commercial and business litigation team in London

NEWS
The Legal Action Group (LAG)—the UK charity dedicated to advancing access to justice—has unveiled its calendar of training courses, seminars and conferences designed to support lawyers, advisers and other legal professionals in tackling key areas of public interest law
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
Employment law is shifting at the margins. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ this week, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School examines a Court of Appeal ruling confirming that volunteers are not a special legal species and may qualify as ‘workers’
back-to-top-scroll