header-logo header-logo

03 December 2021 / Michael Zander KC
Issue: 7959 / Categories: Features , Criminal
printer mail-detail

The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill in committee

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and Crossbencher peers moved amendments which were debated, often at great length, rebutted by the government and then withdrawn.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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll