Motion A Moved by Lord Bellamy That this House do not insist on its
Amendment 32 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 32A
in lieu— 32A: Clause 18, page 18, line 25, at end insert— “(3A)
After section 51 insert— “51A Duty to co-operate with Commissioner
(1) The Commissioner may request a relevant person to co-operate
with the Commissioner in any way that the Commissioner considers
necessary for the purposes of the Commissioner's...Request free trial
Motion A
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 32 and do agree
with the Commons in their Amendment 32A in lieu—
32A: Clause 18, page 18, line 25, at end insert—
“(3A) After section 51 insert—
“51A Duty to co-operate with Commissioner
(1) The Commissioner may request a relevant person to co-operate
with the Commissioner in any way that the Commissioner considers
necessary for the purposes of the Commissioner's functions.
(2) A relevant person must comply with a request made to the
person under this section, so far as it is appropriate and
reasonably practicable for the person to do so.
(3) In this section “relevant person” means a person who is not
an individual and is subject to the duty in section 5(A1) of the
Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 (duty to provide services in
accordance with the code issued under section 2 of that
Act).””
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice
() (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, in moving Motion A I will
speak also to Motions B to H.
It is a privilege to bring the Victims and Prisoners Bill back to
this House from the other place, whence it has returned in
relatively good shape. I am grateful to Members of both Houses
for the constructive way in which they have engaged with the
Bill, especially on this last stage of its passage. I again thank
all the officials at the Ministry of Justice for their hard work
on the Bill. The other place has made some amendments, which I
will consider in turn. I hope they will not be controversial. I
will take them in what seems to me to be a logical order, which
is not necessarily the alphabetical order in which they now stand
in the Motions.
Lords Amendment 33, which is the subject of Motion B, seeks to
require training to be provided to those with obligations under
the victims' code. Of course, agencies should, and do, have
training in place to deliver the legislative duty to act in
accordance with the code, but that training must be tailored to
the specific function that each person is discharging, and
agencies are best placed to do that. As it would place an
additional burden on the Secretary of State to implement a
strategy of training, we consider this amendment would be costly
and inefficient. It would not be proper for an amendment from the
Lords to place financial burdens on public authorities.
We also consider that the more effective approach, as has been
committed by the Government in the other place, is to include a
requirement for agencies to report on the adequacy of their code
training as part of evidencing delivery of code entitlements.
This gives us a route to identify and address ineffective
training if it has led to non-compliance with the code. For those
reasons, the Government do not support the original Lords
Amendment 33.
Lords Amendment 47, which is the subject of Motion E, seeks to
establish a firewall and prevent the police sharing data relating
to immigration status with Immigration Enforcement. We disagree
with this amendment because it would be inappropriate to impose a
blanket restriction on the use of personal data in the
circumstances to which the amendment relates. It would not
prevent the perpetrator informing Immigration Enforcement about
the victim's immigration status, and it would impact on the
ability to investigate crimes and support victims.
Leaving those two amendments aside, the Government have today
brought forward a number of other amendments in lieu. I turn to
Amendment 32, which is the subject of Motion A and concerns the
duty to co-operate with the Victims' Commissioner. We have
accepted the principle of the amendment put forward, which would
place a duty on relevant authorities to co-operate with the
Victims' Commissioner when requested. Again, I am pleased to see
my noble friend Lady Newlove in her place today. We hear the
strength of feeling that a response to the Victims' Commissioner
as they do their important work should not be seen as a favour
and that there should be clear, open co-operation as an integral
part of enabling the independent scrutiny that victims
deserve.
The Government's Amendment 32A makes a few minor changes to
Amendment 32. First, it extends co-operation further than simply
assisting the commissioner in monitoring compliance with the
victims' code. Instead, it requires co-operation in relation to
any of the Victims' Commissioner's functions, including promoting
the interests of victims and witnesses. Secondly, it adds
important safeguards to make it clear that any co-operation must
be not only practical but appropriate. This protects against, for
example, potential interference with activities that are rightly
independent, such as when exercising prosecutorial discretion.
Thirdly, it future-proofs the clause by putting this duty on the
agencies that deliver services under the victims' code, rather
than including a specific list of bodies that may become out of
date over time.
I turn now to Lords Amendment 35, which is the subject of Motion
C. This amendment disapplies Clause 18 in relation to devolved
matters in Wales. Only yesterday, I think, I explained the
devolution position as regards Wales. We are seeking to amend the
measures that relate to the issuing of guidance about victim
support roles, which now form Clause 18. Victim support roles
operate across different settings, some of which are devolved.
The Senedd did not grant legislative consent for this measure as
previously drafted. I am therefore putting forward an amendment
so that the duty to issue guidance applies to England and
reserved matters in Wales only, and have consequently removed the
requirement to consult with Welsh Ministers on “any” guidance
issued. I am grateful for the constructive discussions that have
taken place in relation to the important principles that sit
behind this clause, which aims to improve the consistency of
support services provided to victims, and am confident that we
can continue to work together so that victims have this
consistency across England and Wales wherever possible.
I now come to Motion F, which concerns the amendment on the duty
of candour. Lords Amendment 54 seeks to place a statutory duty of
candour on all public authorities, public servants and officials
after a major incident has been declared in writing by the
Secretary of State. The Government entirely share the desire to
see an end to unacceptable institutional defensiveness,
dissembling or what can perhaps be described as an economical
approach to the truth. However, we are unable to accept the
amendment in its current form as it would not sit neatly on top
of the existing frameworks; it is ill suited to replace what
already exists, both in the context of major incidents and
beyond; it fails to take into account the nuances of different
professions in the spheres of the public sector; and it would
entail significant legal uncertainty. The area is complex, and we
believe that it would be unwise to rush forward with this
amendment for these reasons.
Therefore, we have tabled Amendment 54A to require a statutory
review to determine whether additional duties of transparency and
candour should be imposed on public authorities and public
servants in relation to major incidents. This review will need to
be completed by the end of the calendar year, and, following the
completion of this review, a report will need to be laid before
Parliament.
I come to Motion G, which concerns the MAPPA amendments. In
effect, government Amendment 99A replies to Lords Amendments 98
and 99, which relate to MAPPA. Amendment 99A would ensure that
those convicted of controlling or coercive behaviour who are
sentenced to at least 12 months' imprisonment will be
automatically subject to management under the MAPPA arrangements,
thereby ensuring that we are effectively managing and targeting
the most dangerous domestic abuse offenders.
The previous amendment to the Bill was tabled in the other place
to add domestic abuse and stalking perpetrators to those who
qualify for automatic MAPPA management. While there is a legal
definition of domestic abuse, a domestic abuse crime does not
exist with the exception of controlling or coercive behaviour.
Therefore, although well intentioned, this amendment would still
have required criminal justice agencies to decide on a
case-by-case basis whether an offender is eligible for MAPPA
management and consequently would not quite have achieved the
intention to reduce or eliminate any scope for local
discretion.
There are already provisions in place that require offenders on
licence to live only at an address approved by probation. All
offenders released on licence are further subject to standard
conditions, and there are numerous additional licence conditions
that can be imposed to address specific risk factors. Those
conditions also allow for information to be collected and used to
manage the risk. The previous amendment would have added little
to public safety but could result in a significant pressure on
resources.
Offenders who perpetrate other forms of domestic abuse, such as
threats to kill, actual and grievous bodily harm, attempted
strangulation, putting people in fear, and stalking, including
fear of violence, serious alarm or distress, are already
automatically managed under the automatic MAPPA of sentence to 12
months custody or more. Adding the additional offence of
controlling and coercive behaviour will ensure that the most
harmful domestic abuse offenders will be automatically covered by
these arrangements. These changes mean that these offenders will
be automatically managed under MAPPA in the same way as those
convicted of sexual, violent or terrorist offences. This is
crucial, as controlling or coercive behaviour is a known risk
factor for domestic homicide. Treating these offenders in the
same way as the most violent offenders is critical to improving
the safety of domestic abuse victims.
I come, therefore, to Motion H, which I think is the last Motion
before the House, which is the home detention curfew amendment.
For someone in my position, this is procedurally somewhat
difficult to follow, because it involves the Government
disagreeing with their own amendment, Amendment 106, in order to
reintroduce it with an addition. Amendment 106A is exactly the
same as Amendment 106, but Amendment 106B, which is the important
amendment, extends the eligibility of the home detention curfew
scheme to offenders serving four years or more.
The original aim of the home detention curfew scheme was to help
suitable lower-risk offenders who had been in custody to
reintegrate into society in a controlled manner. As sentences
become longer, it is important that we revisit whether
eligibility for HDC continues to allow all those who may be
suitable and would benefit from the scheme to be considered, as
originally intended. That means looking again at whether
offenders who are excluded solely because of sentence length or
old curfew breaches, rather than any assessment of risk, should
be able to be considered for HDC. Since HDC was introduced,
sentences have grown longer and should no longer be the sole
determination of whether someone is eligible to be considered for
HDC. A four-year sentence length for old curfew breach is not a
useful measure of whether an offender is lower-risk and suitable
for HDC.
While this amendment increases the number of offenders eligible
for HDC, it does not extend the range of offences that make an
offender eligible for HDC. All sexual offenders and serious
violent offenders are excluded from the scheme, as are those
subject to Parole Board release. Those convicted of offences
often associated with domestic abuse, such as stalking or
harassment, are also excluded. So are many other people,
including category A prisoners. There is also a robust risk
assessment to ensure that offenders are released only if there is
a plan to manage them safely in the community. In every case,
that includes a curfew backed up with electronic monitoring.
I think I have covered Motions A to H, and I beg to move.
3.15pm
(LD)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Brinton will respond to most of
these items. I cannot resist wondering whether she will comment
on whether it is inappropriate to rush towards the duty of
candour given the history of the item, but I want to speak
particularly to Motion E regarding data sharing for immigration
purposes. This amendment has an unhappy history: we have never
succeeded before, and I know we will not succeed today—as I say
that, I look at the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, in whose name
the amendment was tabled to this Bill.
The threat comes from abusers, often domestic abusers, but other
abusers as well. In saying to someone who has immigration status
that they are illegal, it is irrelevant that that is inaccurate:
the abuser provokes fear, and this trumps everything in the mind
of the person who is affected. Sadly, for some people, this
amendment would be highly “appropriate”, picking up the words in
the Commons reason, and the circumstances are immigration
control. But for the Home Office, immigration control, even if
this amendment is not really about immigration control, trumps
everything. The Home Office has previously resisted attempts to
control data sharing, so this is no surprise, but we will not
pursue it today.
(LD)
My Lords, it seems only 24 hours ago that we were discussing
these amendments. Indeed, we were. There has been some progress
made, for which we thank the Government from these Benches. It
may not meet everything that we were seeking, but there has been
some clarity on some of the issues.
On Amendment 33—the training support and the alternative offer
from the Government—the reason that those of us who supported it
really wanted to see it is the lack of consistency in training
between police forces and other parts of the criminal justice
system. Although the Minister says that is expensive, it is also
very expensive when mistakes are made because the training has
not been adequate. We put on notice that this is yet another of
the items that will, I suspect, appear as amendments in the
future.
I completely support everything my noble friend Lady Hamwee has
said on the immigration firewall, and I will not add any more to
that. The review of the duty of candour for major incidents is
welcome, given that the Government would not agree to Labour's
amendment on it. I hope the review will look at not just major
incidents but the duty of candour widely in the public sector,
because I am not sure, for example, that the infected blood
scandal would have appeared as a major incident for perhaps a
decade, or two decades, or even longer. I hope those involved
with that committee will look at that, but we welcome the
review.
On the MAPPA points, I think that is a helpful amendment, and I
can understand why it has been laid. From these Benches, we would
like to see it in operation to make sure that it works.
The final point I want to come to is on the Government's own
amendment to the eligibility for home detention curfews. I am
very pleased that the Minister specifically mentioned that those
convicted of stalking, even with sentences of under four years,
will not be able to access home detention curfew. We spent some
considerable time during the passage of the Bill also discussing
why it is often the case that the CPS charges people with things
other than stalking. Those people who are known to be stalkers,
but are convicted of a lesser crime, still pose the same risk,
particularly when they have been multiple offenders. We urge the
Government from these Benches to make sure that the CPS looks at
charging stalking and a lesser offence because we believe that
that is a problem for many of the things that have been
progressed during the passage of the Bill.
I will say very briefly that I am very grateful to the noble
Baroness, Lady Newlove, for her help as the Victims'
Commissioner, and to the Domestic Abuse Commissioner and the
London Victims' Commissioner —who is in the Gallery today—and all
their teams. They have briefed your Lordships' House to help the
progress of this Bill. The London Victims' Commissioner and I
were remembering that it was 14 years ago that the stalking
inquiry report was published, and much but not all of that has
been enacted. I hope that future Governments will make sure that
we can better resolve stalking cases in the future.
of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, we welcome the discussions that have taken place in the
usual channels to ensure that the calling of the election does
not unduly disadvantage victims who have waited for many years
for this legislation to be brought forward. We on our side have
strived to be collaborative throughout the Bill's progress and,
while we have not been able to achieve everything we would have
liked, we acknowledge that the department has been willing to
negotiate on some matters and make a number of amendments in
lieu.
It is a shame that my noble friend Lady Royall's amendments on
stalking were not successful as part of the negotiating process.
On stalking and the eligibility for home detention curfew, I
thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, made a very
interesting point about the CPS charging stalkers with
alternative offences as well. As I have said in other debates, I
have dealt as a magistrate with stalking matters relatively
recently. If lesser charges of harassment can be pressed in the
alternative, the court would have better choices to make when
determining guilt or otherwise. I thought that that was an
interesting point.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, did not mention unduly lenient
sentencing. While that was not part of the wash-up agreement, the
Government nevertheless committed from the Dispatch Box to keep
unduly lenient sentencing under review. As far as I can or cannot
commit any future Government, I think it is something that any
Government would want to keep under review, as the amendment from
the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is important.
We also welcome the amendment in lieu, Amendment 32A, on the duty
for agencies to co-operate with the Victims' Commissioner. I
congratulate her on all her sterling work on this Bill. This does
not go quite as far as we asked, but it is an improvement,
nevertheless.
The Labour Party remains committed to introducing a statutory
duty of candour. It is a shame that the Government have not felt
able to go further, but at least there is a review in the
Bill.
We are pleased that the infected blood provisions will make it on
to the statute book and be commenced at Royal Assent, and we
welcome the recent government Statements and hope that
compensation will get to people as early as possible.
On IPP, we have tried to work collaboratively across party lines
and there is further work to be done. We want to ensure that
solutions proposed are robust and assessed with public safety in
mind, and we will work at pace, consulting widely on potential
ways forward.
We of course welcome the concession on controlling or coercive
behaviour and the MAPPA process, in Amendment 99A. It is an
important marker, but only part of a bigger picture where
violence against women and girls needs to be addressed. There is
more work to do, but passing this Bill is an important step
towards a new era of transparency and advocacy for victims of
crime.
In conclusion, I thank my honourable friend for steering Labour's
response to the Bill through the other place and my noble friend
Lady Thornton for her support for me during the passage of the
Bill. I also thank our advisers, and Clare Scally.
Finally, I thank the noble and learned Lord, . I also thank his civil
servants, who have been extremely helpful to me and, I know, to
many other noble Lords who have taken an interest in this Bill.
Turning back to the noble and learned Lord, I know he will say
that he works as part of a team, but the team needs a leader and
he has been the leader for this Bill in this House—and that has
been to the benefit of all noble Lords who have taken an interest
in the Bill.
The Bill is an accomplishment. It is only a step in the road, and
I hope we can work on the progress that has been made in any
future Governments who may be formed.
(Con)
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I will deal briefly with
the points made. The point the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, made
about the firewall is a difficult one. No doubt it will continue
to be discussed in the years ahead. The Government do not feel
able to go further at the moment.
On Motion E, which is on the importance of training, I hope we
have now put in place something effective, though indirect, to
ensure that training will happen properly. That will no doubt be
kept under review and be publicly reported in the annual report,
so that this House and the other place can monitor how that is
going.
On Motion G, which is on MAPPA, I respectfully suggest that the
Government's amendment completes the picture. It includes
coercion and controlling behaviour. The point the noble Baroness,
Lady Brinton, made about the importance of the CPS considering
exactly what it charges is important, but I stress my own
understanding that a risk assessment will take place in every
case so that, even if there is not actually a stalking charge,
the fact that it is stalking-like behaviour should be properly
taken into account in assessing the risk before HDC is used.
On the commitment in relation to unduly lenient sentences, which
the noble Lord, , mentioned, at the time we
envisaged that we would include something in the Criminal Justice
Bill. Unfortunately, that has not taken place. The Government's
commitment remains as long as the Government are the
Government—no doubt a future Government will wish to take that
matter forward as well.
Those are my brief comments on the substantive points that have
been made, but I will make some very brief concluding remarks as
we reach the concluding stages of the Victims and Prisoners Bill.
I once again thank all those who have engaged and collaborated
throughout the passage of the Bill. I particularly thank my noble
friends Lord Howe and , who, if your Lordships
remember, took over the passage of the entire Bill at a certain
stage in Committee and have taken on certain sections of the
Bill. My noble friend has done very important
work, particularly on MAPPA and related points, but my noble
friend Lord Howe, as your Lordships know, has taken on a major
role in relation to the infected blood issues. I am very grateful
to them.
I am very pleased that the Bill has made it through this process.
We have not lost it and I put on record my own thanks to all the
officials who contributed to the Bill. They have already been
warmly thanked in the other place, but I need particularly to
mention Nikki Jones, Katie Morris and Lizzie Bates, who were
among the team leaders. I also personally thank the infected
blood team at the Cabinet Office.
Since I may not have another opportunity, I will say, personally,
what a privilege it has been to deal at this Dispatch Box with
the affairs of the Ministry of Justice over the last two years,
and how much one appreciates the courtesy, perspicacity and hard
work of this House. Members actually listen to the debates and
take on board the points made. I think most people understand
that we are trying to find solutions to very difficult problems
and there are very often several points of view. My overall
impression is that, on the whole, the House works very closely
and collaboratively. As a newcomer to your Lordships' House, I
may say personally that that is a most impressive
situation—possibly unique among legislatures in the western
world.
3.30pm
I reciprocate the kind remarks made by the noble Lord, of Shulbrede, and thank him
particularly as having been my principal interlocutor over the
last two years. I thank him for his pertinent questions,
unfailing courtesy and wise responses. Although, as he would say,
“I am not lawyer”—he is a non-lawyer, albeit a magistrate—I would
say that the noble Lord is one of the best non-lawyer lawyers one
could possibly have. By which I mean that, in law as in life,
technical knowledge is not by any means the whole story. What
matters is common sense and wisdom. The noble Lord has those
qualities in abundance. I wish him and all Members of this House,
from whatever side, all the best in the future. I beg to move
that this Bill do now pass.
Motion A agreed.
Motion B
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 33 to which the
Commons have disagreed for their Reason 33A.
33A: Because it could affect financial arrangements to be made by
the Commons, and the Commons do not offer any further reason,
trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.
Motion C
Moved by
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 35A
to 35C.
35A: Line 3, at end insert “performed— (a) in England, and (b)
subject to subsection (1A), in Wales. (1A) Guidance under this
section mus35Bnot relate to a matter provision about which would
be within the legislative competence of Senedd Cymru if it were
contained in an Act of the Senedd (ignoring any requirement for
the consent of a Minister of the Crown imposed under Schedule 7B
to the Government of Wales Act 2006).”
35B: Line 29, at end insert— “(b) a devolved Welsh authority,
within the meaning of the Government of Wales Act 2006 (see
section 157A of that Act).”
35C: Leave out lines 30 to 34
Motion D
Moved by
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment
46A.
46A: Line 1, leave out “25” and insert “17”
Motion E
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 47 to which the
Commons have disagreed for their Reason 47A.
47A: Because it would be inappropriate to impose a blanket
restriction on the use of personal data in the circumstances to
which the amendment relates.
Motion F
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 54 and do agree
with the Commons in their Amendment 54A in lieu—
54A: Page 37, line 11, at end insert the following new Clause—
“Review of duty of candour in relation to major incidents (1) The
Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office must,
before 1 January 2025, carry out a review to determine the extent
to which additional duties of transparency and candour should be
imposed on public servants in relation to major incidents. (2)
The Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office may
discharge the duty in subsection (1) by arranging for another
person to carry out the review. (3) The Secretary of State or the
Minister for the Cabinet Office must, as soon as reasonably
practicable after the completion of the review— (a) prepare, or
arrange for another person to prepare, a report about the review,
(b) publish the report, and (c) lay the report before Parliament.
(4) In this section, “public servant” means— (a) a public
authority within the meaning given by section 29(2)(a) (see
section 29(5)); (b) any person exercising the functions of a
public authority (including as an employee of a public authority
or as a person in the civil service of the State).”
Motion G
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 98 and 99 and do
agree with the Commons in their Amendment 99A in lieu—
99A: Page 50, line 37, at end insert the following new Clause—
“Assessing and managing risks posed by controlling or coercive
behaviour offenders In section 327 of the Criminal Justice Act
2003 (section 325: interpretation), in subsection (4A), after
paragraph (c) insert— “(ca) an offence under section 76 of the
Serious Crime Act 2015 (controlling or coercive behaviour in an
intimate or family relationship);”.”
Motion H
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 106 and do agree
with the Commons in their Amendments 106A and 106B in lieu—
106A: Clause 48, page 52, line 36, at end insert— “(4) After
section 32 insert— “32ZZA Imprisonment or detention for public
protection: powers in relation to release of recalled prisoners
(1) This section applies where a prisoner to whom section 31A
(termination of licences of preventive sentence prisoners)
applies—(a) has been released on licence under this Chapter, and
(b) is recalled to prison under section 32. (2) The Secretary of
State may, at any time after the prisoner is returned to prison,
release the prisoner again on licence under this Chapter. (3) The
Secretary of State must not release the prisoner under subsection
(2) unless satisfied that it is no longer necessary for the
protection of the public that the prisoner should remain in
prison. (4) Where the prisoner is released under subsection (2),
the Secretary of State may determine that, for the purposes of
paragraph (c) of section 31A(4H) (automatic licence termination),
the prisoner's licence is to be treated as having remained in
force as if it had not been revoked under section 32. (5) The
Secretary of State may only make a determination under subsection
(4) if the Secretary of State considers that it is in the
interests of justice to do so. (6) Where the Secretary of State
makes a determination under subsection (4), the Secretary of
State must notify the prisoner. (7) In this section, “preventive
sentence” means— (a) a sentence of imprisonment or detention in a
young offender institution for public protection under section
225 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (including one passed as a
result of section 219 of the Armed Forces Act 2006), or (b) a
sentence of detention for public protection under section 226 of
the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (including one passed as a result
of section 221 of the Armed Forces Act 2006).””
106B: Clause 48, page 52, line 36, at end insert— “Extension of
home detention curfew Extension of home detention curfew (1)
Section 246 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (release of
prisoners on licence before required to do so) is amended as
follows. (2) In subsection (1), after “fixed-term prisoner”
insert “, other than one to whom section 244ZA, 244A, 246A, 247,
247A or 247B or paragraph 4 or 24 of Schedule 20B applies,”. (3)
In subsection (4)— (a) omit paragraphs (a) to (ab); (b) after
paragraph (ab) insert— “(ac) the prisoner is one to whom section
244ZA would apply if— (i) section 244ZA(4)(c), (5)(c) and (6)(c)
were omitted, (ii) the reference in section 244ZA(5)(a) to
section 262 of the Sentencing Code were read as including a
reference to section 96 of the PCC(S)A 2000, and (iii) the
reference in section 244ZA(6)(a) to section 250 of the Sentencing
Code were read as including a reference to section 91 of the
PCC(S)A 2000,”; (c) in paragraph (g) for “at any time” substitute
“during the currency of the sentence”; (d) for paragraph (ga)
substitute— “(ga) the following apply— (i) the prisoner has been
released on licence under this section in relation to a previous
sentence and has been recalled to prison under section 255(1)(a)
(and the revocation of the licence has not been cancelled under
section 255(3)), and (ii) the requisite custodial period in
relation to the previous sentence ended less than 2 years before
the day on which the current sentence began, (gb) the following
apply— (i) the prisoner has been released on licence under
section 34A of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 in relation to a
previous sentence and has been recalled to prison under section
38A(1)(a) of that Act (and the revocation of the licence has not
been cancelled under section 38A(3) of that Act), and (ii) the
requisite custodial period in relation to the previous sentence
ended less than 2 years before the day on which the current
sentence began,”; (e) omit paragraph (ha) (but not the “or” at
the end of it). (4) Omit subsection (4ZA).”
Motions B to H agreed.
|
