header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
03 December 2021 / Michael Zander KC
Issue: 7959 / Categories: Features , Criminal
printer mail-detail

The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill in committee

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
66010
Michael Zander on the government’s response to Extinction Rebellion
  • Wilful obstruction and locking on.
  • Serious Disruption Prevention Orders.

The committee stage of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill in the House of Lords came to an unexpected end last week at 1.20am the night of November 24/25. By then, their lordships had been at it for some 70 hours over 11 days. They had considered more than 450 amendments. Labour, Liberal Democrat, Green Party and Crossbencher peers moved amendments which were debated, often at great length, rebutted by the government and then withdrawn. Not a single one had been put to a vote.

The previous week the government had tabled almost 20 pages of amendments proposing significant public order changes aimed at the problems caused by Extinction Rebellion and similar radical protest. The government hoped to get the amendments accepted by the committee. The Liberal Democrats signalled that they would call for a vote. But, quite apart from their controversial content, the late tabling

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

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll