These amendments would make three changes to the provisions of plan clause 105 which extend the powers of the Crown Prosecution Service designated caseworkers. These changes would provide for designated caseworkers to be subject to statutory regulation under the legal Services Act; restrict the trials remit of designated caseworkers so that they can only conduct proceedings in respect of non-imprisonable summary only offences; and limit the type of preventative. Lords Amendments 87, 89, 90, 91 and 343. . These amendments would limit the trial element of the new powers conferred by clause 105 by restricting cps designated caseworkers statutory powers to undertaking trials of summary only offences in the magistrates' courts. Amendment 89 is intended to provide clarity as to the purpose and intention of 7A(2 b) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. This paragraph relates to the subsidiary powers of a designated caseworker. The amendment would widen the scope of the current paragraph to include certain civil proceedings.
Amendments 84 and 276 to 278 would remove the restriction on the age range for youth conditional cautions. This means that the youth conditional caution would be available for 10-17 year olds inclusive, rather than just 16-17 year olds. The government has made it clear, however, that the introduction of the youth conditional caution will be staged and initially introduced only for those aged 16 and 17 years old. Amendment 283 is consequential and would change the amendment to the rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 so that it would now refer to youth conditional cautions for 10-17 year olds rather than just 16-17 year olds. Lords Amendments 85, 181 and 332. . These amendments would provide the secretary of State with the power (subsequent to affirmative resolution) to amend the provisions in new sections 66A-66H of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 in respect of youth conditional cautions for those aged 15 and under. This would be necessary because the needs and specific requirements of those aged 10-15 are likely to be different from those aged 16 and. Subsequent to consultation on the younger age range, it may be necessary to amend the provisions on youth conditional cautions for this age group. Lords Amendments 86, 88, 89 (in part) and. .
Amendments to the rome Statute of the International
These amendments would remove entry clause 42 (Amendment of test for allowing appeals: England and Wales) and clause 43 (Amendment of test for allowing appeals: Northern Ireland) from the bill. Amendments 264 to 266, 298 and 340 would amend Schedules 8, 35 and 37 consequential on the removal of these two clauses. Lords Amendments 34, 35, 297, 330 and 331. . Amendment 34 would replace the existing clause 44 with a new clause which inserts a new section 16C into the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. New section 16C would apply only in cases where the court of Appeal is determining an appeal referred to it by the Criminal Cases review Commission and the only ground for allowing the appeal is that there has been a development in the law since.
In such cases, it would be open to the court to dismiss the appeal if they would have refused an extension of time within which to seek leave to appeal (had the court been considering an out of time application by the appellant rather than. Amendment 35 makes equivalent provision for Northern Ireland, and amendment 297 for armed forces legislation. Amendments 330 and 331 are transitional provisions. Lords Amendments 36 to 97, 180, 187, 188, 190, 191 and 347. . These amendments would remove part 4 (Her Majesty's Commissioner for Offender Management and Prisons) and Part 5 (The northern Ireland Commissioner for Prison Complaints, and Schedules 9. Amendments 180, 187, 188, 190 191 and 347 would make other changes to the bill consequential upon the removal of Parts 4 and. Lords Amendments 84, 276 to 278 and 283. .
Amendment 22 would provide that those prisoners who would be ineligible for fixed term recall because they have been released early onto the home detention Curfew scheme or for compassionate reasons and have been recalled under section 254 before their automatic release date would. Amendment 23 would add offences under service law to the specified offences to which the provisions on release on recall apply. Lords Amendments 24 and. . These amendments would remove the power to vary by order the fixed period of 28 days which certain offenders would spend in custody under the new recall provisions before being automatically re-released and the number of days an offender would spend in custody (not serving. Lords Amendments 25, 26 and. .
Amendment 25 would define the "normal entitlement date" for the purpose of the new exclusion from eligibility for fixed term recall and sets out when multiple sentences would be treated as a single term of imprisonment for the purpose of that exclusion. Amendment 26 would make clear that the new provisions for further release after recall in clause 29 apply equally to juveniles serving determinate terms under.91 of the powers of Criminal courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 or section 228 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Amendment 27 would provide that prisoners ineligible for fixed term recall by virtue of the new exclusion are subject to the standard recall procedure in 255C. Lords Amendments 29 and. . Amendment 29 would provide that the new recall and further release arrangements as set out in the amendments to clause 29 would apply to prisoners who are released under Part ct then recalled under section 254(1) of the 2003 Act subject to the modifications listed. Amendment 30 would list those modifications, namely: (i) and (ii) cross-referencing the Criminal Justice Act 2003 release provisions in the amendment to the equivalent release provisions in the Criminal Justice Act 1991; (iii) omitting section 255A(10A) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 as the same. This amendment would enable a second referral order to be imposed on a person aged under 18 where the offender pleads guilty to one or more offences and the court, on a recommendation made by a youth offending team or other appropriate officer, considers that. This would allow a second referral order to be made where, for example, there has been a significant period between the first referral and the subsequent offence. Lords Amendments 32, 33, 264 to 266, 298 and 340. .
Summary : fisa, amendments, reauthorization Act - lawfare
This amendment to clause 15 would remove the redundant word, "previously". This amendment would put beyond doubt that foreign convictions may be considered when assessing dangerousness for the purposes of a public protection sentence. This amendment would include service offences in those to be taken into account when assessing dangerousness. This amendment would ensure that the reference to Schedule 15 (sexual and violent offences) for the purpose of dis-applying the new homework provision requiring the secretary of State to release Criminal Justice Act 1991 essays prisoners automatically at the halfway point of their sentences includes a reference. Lords Amendments 20 to. . Amendment 20 would insert a further category of prisoner (section 255A(2 aa) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003) who would not be eligible to be considered for automatic release, namely those prisoners who are released early on compassionate grounds or on Home detention Curfew and. Amendment 21 would reflect the fact that a prisoner would not fall into more than one exclusion category in respect of eligibility for fixed term recall. A prisoner who would not be eligible for fixed term recall would be processed under the standard recall procedure or the extended sentence recall procedure.
Lords Amendments 14, 16, 263, 323, 339 and 341. . Amendment 263 would add to the new Schedule 15A to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (as inserted by Schedule 6 to the bill) offences under service law which correspond to the offences listed in journal Part 1 of that Schedule. Amendments 14 and 16 would be consequential on the fact that the Schedule would now cover service offences (for which a person could be convicted in any part of the world). Amendments 323, 339 and 341 would make consequential repeals. One of the new conditions for the making of a public protection sentence is that the offender had previously been convicted of an offence specified in the new Schedule 15A to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (as inserted by Schedule 6 to the bill). Several of the offences listed in the new Schedule 15A refer to offences under the sexual Offences Act 2003 where those offences were committed in circumstances which made the offender liable to imprisonment for life. Amendment 263 would also make clear that "imprisonment for life" includes 'detention' for life or 'custody' for life so as to put beyond doubt that the new condition could be satisfied where an offender had committed one of the offences when he was under.
of the armed forces in paragraph 8 of Schedule. Lords Amendments 10 to 12 and 227. . Amendments 10 to 12 would tidy up and simplify the drafting of that part of clause 12 which amends section 151 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (community order or youth community order for persistent offender previously fined). The amendments to section 151 which are already in the bill are necessary only to make it consistent with the main purpose of clause 12 which is to restrict the availability of the community order to imprisonable offences. The tidying up would conveniently also remove an inconsistency in the drafting. Amendment 227 would be consequential upon amendments 10. Lords Amendment. . This amendment would provide for a requirement that a pre-sentence report for a young person aged under 18 be made in writing where the court is considering custody as an appropriate sentence for the offence or offences.
(In the following Commentary, an asterisk appears in the heading of each of the paragraphs dealing with a non-government amendment which was opposed by the government). Commentary on lords amendments, lords Amendments 1, 198 to 206, 218 to 226 and 231 to 235. . These dissertation amendments would ensure that the duties and responsibilities that are to be placed on officers of local probation boards under Part 1 of the bill are also placed be on officers of other providers of probation services. They would reflect the new probation arrangements in Part 1 of the Offender Management Act 2007, which are to come into force in phases from Bill 104EN 54/3, lords Amendments 2 and. . These amendments would remove from this interpretation clause the entry which provides that a "court" does not include a service court; this would be unnecessary given that in the context of the provisions of Part 1 it is already sufficiently clear that references. Such an approach is commonly adopted in other criminal justice legislation. Lords Amendments 4 to. . These amendments would remove the requirement that a court dealing with an offender aged under 18 must have regard primarily to the principal aim of the youth justice system (which is to prevent offending (or re-offending) by persons aged under 18). These amendments would secure that a court must instead have equal regard to each of the following factors: (a) the principal aim of the youth justice system; (b) the welfare of the young person, in accordance with section 44 of the Children and young Persons Act 1933;.
Re: Tentative summary of the amendments
These notes refer to lords Amendments to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill as brought from the house of Lords on 30th April 2008 Bill 104. Criminal justice and immigration bill, explanatory notes, on lords amendments. These explanatory notes relate to the lords Amendments to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill as brought from the house of Lords on 30th April 2008. They have been prepared by the ministry of Justice in order to assist the reader of the bill and the lords Amendments and to help inform debate on the lords Amendments. They do not form part of the bill and have not been endorsed by parliament. These notes, like the lords Amendments themselves, refer to hl bill 16, the bill as first printed for the lords. These notes need to be read in conjunction with the lords Amendments and the text of the bill. They are not, and are not meant to be, a comprehensive description of the effect of the lords Amendments. All the lords amendments were interests in the name of the minister, except for amendments 9, 301, 327, 86, 88, 89 (in part) 90, 115, 117, 127, 173, 285, 24, 28, which were opposed by the government.