V1474 – Prevention of Crime Act 1953 (Amendment) Bill 2019 (Third Reading) Watch

Poll: Should this bill be passed into law?
As many as are of the opinion, aye (22)
46.81%
Of the contrary, no (24)
51.06%
Abstain (1)
2.13%
This discussion is closed.
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 8 months ago
#1

What is this thread about?
This is a vote in the Model House of Commons (MHoC). This item has already been debated in the House, and is now being voted on by MPs. If you're not an MP, please do not vote or comment here, even if you are able to do so!

What is the MHoC?
It's a political role-playing game where we pretend to be the House of Commons, and it's been going since 2005. We have formed parties, we have elections twice a year, and we debate bills and motions just like the real-life parliament. If you want to know more about how the MHoC works, your first port of call is the user manual. If you'd like to get involved and possibly join a party, you want the welcome thread.


V1474 – Prevention of Crime Act 1953 (Amendment) Bill 2019 (Third Reading), TSR Government
A
BILL
TO

bring in provisions for more resilient responses and punishments to the possession of offensive weapons, when necessary

BE IT ENACTED by the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

1(X)Definitions
(X) (1) All definitions shall remain as such defined in existing legislation.

2(X)Amendments to the Prevention of Crime Act 1953
(1) The Prevention of Crime Act 1953 is hereby amended as follows.
(2) After Section 1A, insert the following:-
(X) 2(X)Specific orders
(X)(X) (1) The Secretary of State may by order or promulgation and under the terms of this section give authorisation for a definite period of ‘universal increased sentencing’ (UIS), if he so deems it conducive to the public good and if he so receives and can command the confidence of at least two police commissioners, each from different police forces.
(X)(X) (2) A UIS authorisation may apply to the possession of a specific article, or type of article, under the classification of offensive weapons, subject to the order or promulgation of the Secretary of State.
(X)(X) (3) Where in place, the maximum sentence for the possession of a UIS authorisation mandated article shall be as defined within this Section.
(X)(X) (4) Any person who without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, the proof whereof shall lie on him, has with him in any public place any offensive weapon forming part of a UIS authorisation shall be liable:-
(X)(X)(X) (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fifty-one weeks or a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale, or both;
(X)(X)(X) (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or both.
(X)(X) (5) A UIS authorisation may not exceed twenty-eight days in duration.
(X)(X) (6) A UIS authorisation may not be granted in relation to an article or type of article already subject to a UIS authorisation within the preceding seven days, unless a credible threat remains.
(X)(X) (7) The imposition of a UIS authorisation may be challenged through independent tribunal proceedings which must be invoked prior to the lapsing of the authorisation and must take due regard to:-
(X)(X)(X) (a) any information made available to the Secretary of State at, or before, the time of the authorisation being brought into force, specifically:-
(X)(X)(X)(X) (i) details concerning a recurrent and present threat utilising the mandated article;
(X)(X)(X)(X) (ii) information received from police forces concerning the use of mandated articles in the preceding 28 day period.
(X)(X)(X) (b) whether the imposition was reasonably made in respect, or regards, to a serious elevated threat;
(X)(X)(X) (c) the displayed confidence of the backing police commissioners;
(X)(X)(X) (d) any other information that the tribunal deems pertinent.
(X)(X) (8) The tribunal proceedings under subsection (7) may not comment on the suitability or otherwise make reference to any open cases brought under this Act to which this section applies.

3(X)Citation and Commencement:
(1) This act extends to the whole of the United Kingdom.
(2) This act will come into force upon Royal Assent.
(3) This act may be cited as the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 (Amendment) Bill 2019.

Notes
We live in a world of dynamic, popular, social-media fuelled crime: at a time when the possession of offensive weapons is fueling the sad destruction of life throughout the United Kingdom with specific regard to London, it is time that our law becomes such to respond with force to ‘dynamic crime’.

This Bill proposes the creation of ‘universal increased sentencing’ (UIS) authorisations - working in a similar fashion to Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 orders. The SoS may issue a UIS authorisation as to forcefully tackle ‘spikes’ in activity, if he so believes it is conducive to the public good. Each authorisation may only last twenty-eight days with a seven day cool-off period after each.


Changes for the Second Reading
A review mechanism has now been included.


Changes for the Third Reading
Additional checks and balances have been added; notably, commanding the confidence of at least two different police commissioners; the review mechanism has been fortified.
Last edited by Saracen's Fez; 8 months ago
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#2
Report 8 months ago
#2
"on summary conviction"
"the proof whereof shall lie on him"

ns_2 so much for presumption of innocence

And still no real checks or balances

This bill is a complete affront to our fundamental values and any right thinking member should be voting against it without hesitation, we have a justice system based on presumption of innocence and due process, this bill throws that through the shredder by introducing summary sentencing with the onus being on the accused to prove themselves innocent to be released.
Last edited by Jammy Duel; 8 months ago
0
SoggyCabbages
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#3
Report 8 months ago
#3
Saracen's Fez

Please may you change my aye to a nay, fat thumbs on my mobile!
0
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4
Report 8 months ago
#4
Nay
0
tengentoppa
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#5
Report 8 months ago
#5
Saracen's Fez Please change my vote to aye
0
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#6
Report 8 months ago
#6
(Original post by tengentoppa)
Saracen's Fez Please change my vote to aye
*whipping intensifies*
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#7
Report 8 months ago
#7
CheeseIsVeg 04MR17

Were the votes in favour of this a case of fat fingers or are you legitimately voting for summary conviction and presumption of guilt, that is imprisonment for up to 51 weeks without trail along with a requirement to prove yourself innocent to be released before the year is up?
0
SankaraInBloom
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#8
Report 8 months ago
#8
Naturally opposed to this. Fails to tackle the problem and the proposed solution isn't great either.
0
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#9
Report 8 months ago
#9
Shame on the Liberal Democrats if their leader votes for this, it’s a black mark on their party.
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#10
Report 8 months ago
#10
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
CheeseIsVeg 04MR17

Were the votes in favour of this a case of fat fingers or are you legitimately voting for summary conviction and presumption of guilt, that is imprisonment for up to 51 weeks without trail along with a requirement to prove yourself innocent to be released before the year is up?
(Original post by Connor27)
Shame on the Liberal Democrats if their leader votes for this, it’s a black mark on their party.
I'm massively anti violence, why is this a shock to you?
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#11
Report 8 months ago
#11
(Original post by 04MR17)
I'm massively anti violence, why is this a shock to you?
Because I would have thought anybody who described themselves a Liberal would also be against summary sentencing and presumption of guilt, rather believing that there should be no imprisonment without having been found guilt of an offence, the effect of this bill would be the imprisonment and fining of innocent people in the name of "anti-violence" despite the fact that the measure will do little, if anything, to achieve that end.

There is absolutely no reason why they should be summarily imprisoned and be required to prove innocence when things could be done the proper way, that is arrest the individual and try them. If they really are guilty the outcome is the same, but it does not suspend the presumption of innocence, nor does it avoid imprisonment only upon successful conviction, two things which are fundamental to our being able to call ourselves a civilised nation.
Last edited by Jammy Duel; 8 months ago
0
SankaraInBloom
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#12
Report 8 months ago
#12
(Original post by 04MR17)
I'm massively anti violence, why is this a shock to you?
This piece of legislation is likely to lead to greater distrust of an increasingly muddled judicial system, resulting in greater offences going unreported. The presumption of innocence until guilt is proven cannot be sacrificed for total hysteria on an issue that every political party of power has got wrong for four decades.
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#13
Report 8 months ago
#13
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Because I would have thought anybody who described themselves a Liberal would also be against summary sentencing and presumption of guilt, rather believing that there should be no imprisonment without having been found guilt of an offence, the effect of this bill would be the imprisonment and fining of innocent people in the name of "anti-violence" despite the fact that the measure will do little, if anything, to achieve that end.
And you're assuming that I describe myself as Liberal just because I'm currently leading the Lib Dems at the moment: in a capacity which does not hugely concern policy. I remember quite a few people who were outraged at me being selected to be an MP based on the fact that I was "illiberal" and now you're saying that I describe myself as Liberal. I suggest my dissenters make up their minds about the ideological stance you wish to pin to me without a huge amount of evidence.

As for the legislation itself, the legal phrasing is unfortunate and I am not a fan of the presumption of guilt by any stretch. For these reasons I wouldn't mind seeing this bill fail, but that doesn't change my vote at the moment.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#14
Report 8 months ago
#14
(Original post by 04MR17)
And you're assuming that I describe myself as Liberal just because I'm currently leading the Lib Dems at the moment: in a capacity which does not hugely concern policy. I remember quite a few people who were outraged at me being selected to be an MP based on the fact that I was "illiberal" and now you're saying that I describe myself as Liberal. I suggest my dissenters make up their minds about the ideological stance you wish to pin to me without a huge amount of evidence.

As for the legislation itself, the legal phrasing is unfortunate and I am not a fan of the presumption of guilt by any stretch. For these reasons I wouldn't mind seeing this bill fail, but that doesn't change my vote at the moment.
And if you maintain and you are, in fact, not a Liberal and therefore will happily allow people to be presumed guilty and be summarily imprisoned why are you leading the Liberal Democrats, or even a member at all?
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#15
Report 8 months ago
#15
Let's try another one for the government: Do they realise that there are only two "police commissioners" in the UK and neither of them are ones that can be made to support this by blindly toeing the party line?
0
SoggyCabbages
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#16
Report 8 months ago
#16
Christ almighty a leader of the supposedly “Liberal” Democrats is voting for this bill.

Textbook definition of a misnomer here.
Last edited by SoggyCabbages; 8 months ago
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#17
Report 8 months ago
#17
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
And if you maintain and you are, in fact, not a Liberal and therefore will happily allow people to be presumed guilty and be summarily imprisoned why are you leading the Liberal Democrats, or even a member at all?
The same reason I've always been a member, because they've treated me well they're nice people and I see myself as the closest fit to their ideology than any of the other parties who were around at the time (and those who've been formed since). I've repeated this on many occassions, I'm not sure if you're growing to be forgetful Jammy. The reason why I'm leading the party is because I was elected.

Also, you've said I'm "maintaining" being not a Liberal? I think I'd have to say I wasn't Liberal in the first place in order to maintain it surely?
0
SoggyCabbages
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#18
Report 8 months ago
#18
(Original post by 04MR17)
The same reason I've always been a member, because they've treated me well they're nice people and I see myself as the closest fit to their ideology than any of the other parties who were around at the time (and those who've been formed since). I've repeated this on many occassions, I'm not sure if you're growing to be forgetful Jammy. The reason why I'm leading the party is because I was elected.

Also, you've said I'm "maintaining" being not a Liberal? I think I'd have to say I wasn't Liberal in the first place in order to maintain it surely?
Straight yes or no answer. Is it a 'Liberal' thing to do to vote for a bill which allows summary imprisonment and presumption of guilt?

If no, why have you voted Aye as you are the leader of a 'Liberal' Party?
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#19
Report 8 months ago
#19
(Original post by SoggyCabbages)
Straight yes or no answer. Is it a 'Liberal' thing to do to vote for a bill which allows summary imprisonment and presumption of guilt?

If no, why have you voted Aye as you are the leader of a 'Liberal' Party?
No.

I've voted Aye because that's how I want to vote whilst I'm proxying for one of my MPs. Otherwise I wouldn't be voting at all.

I hope this helps.
0
SoggyCabbages
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#20
Report 8 months ago
#20
(Original post by 04MR17)
No.

I've voted Aye because that's how I want to vote whilst I'm proxying for one of my MPs. Otherwise I wouldn't be voting at all.

I hope this helps.
Very Liberal of you, well done. No wonder your Party is a toxic brand.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Did you vote in the 2019 general election?

Yes (422)
43.73%
No (102)
10.57%
I'm not old enough (441)
45.7%

Watched Threads

View All