JUSTICE welcomes the considerable amendments made to the #REULBill in last night's debate in the @UKHouseofLords.
This critical stage included widely reported Govt concessions (to provide a list of what retained EU law is being repealed) but also three Govt defeats. (1/8)
Of particular note are the amendments passed to Clauses 1 and 4, the "sunset clauses".
The amendments allow Parliament to scrutinise the revocation of retained EU law, rather than delegating the task to Government ministers and civil servants. (2/8)
In passing these amendments, Peers have insisted that Parliament must not be side-lined: it is vital that there be appropriate scrutiny and oversight of such unprecedented legislative changes. (3/8)
JUSTICE supports the changes made and supports good, democratic law-making being at the heart of the debate on #REUL. (4/8)
The second day of report stage tomorrow will consider amendments to the amending powers in the Bill.
JUSTICE has expressed concern particularly about Clause 16 in the Bill, which contains extremely broad executive powers to amend laws as ministers "consider appropriate". (5/8)
Amendment 76 proposes a joint Parliamentary committee review changes proposed by ministers.
Substantial changes would be subject to debate and amendments by both Houses.
JUSTICE supports the amendment as a significant improvement. (6/8)
JUSTICE is delighted to launch its new Working Party looking at "Hybrid Orders".
Hybrid Orders are orders obtained via a civil procedure, that seek to restrict a person’s behaviour for a preventative purpose and that have criminal consequences if breached. (1/6)
Examples of such orders include Public Space Protection Orders, Anti-Social Behaviour Injunctions, Community Protection Notices, Gang Injunction and Knife Crime Prevention Orders, amongst others. (2/6)
Whilst such orders pursue legitimate objectives to prevent harmful conduct, concerns have been raised about the process for applying for, enforcing, and appealing hybrid orders. (3/6)
This thread covers Part 2 (the criminal sections) of the #JRandCourtsBill#JudicialReviewBill which make significant, and potentially very damaging changes to how the criminal courts work.
There’s so much wrong with this part, and we’ve set out key examples below → (1/17)
Clause 3 would introduce a new way for people accused of crimes that are not punishable with prison to plead guilty entirely online.
It builds on the existing ‘single justice procedure’. (2/17)
This is where you receive a letter accusing you of a crime, and you can respond either pleading guilty or not guilty.
Your case will then be heard by a single magistrate in a closed session.
The prosecutor/defendants’ case must be made in writing. (3/17)
This thread covers Part 1 of the Bill which relates to judicial review (1/10) →
Clause 1 would introduce two new remedies for #judicialreview – prospective only quashing orders and suspended quashing orders. (2/10)
Prospective only remedies risk undermining ordinary citizens’ ability to hold the government to account and deny redress for people who have been affected by unlawful government action – we are calling for them to be removed from the Bill. (3/10)