Criminal justice bill: supplementary echr memorandum 14 may 2024 (accessible version)

* Home Office * Ministry of Justice Policy paper CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL: SUPPLEMENTARY ECHR MEMORANDUM 14 MAY 2024 (ACCESSIBLE VERSION) Updated 14 May 2024 This was published under the 2022

to 2024 Sunak Conservative government CONTENTS * Introduction * New clause: “Assault of retail worker” * New clause: “Requirements in certain sentences imposed for third or subsequent

shoplifting offence” Print this page © Crown copyright 2024 This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this

licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email:

[email protected]. Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. This publication is

available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/criminal-justice-bill-overarching-documents/criminal-justice-bill-supplementary-echr-memorandum-14-may-2024-accessible-version

INTRODUCTION 1. This memorandum supplements memorandums dated November[footnote 1] , December[footnote 2] 2023, January[footnote 3] , 8 May[footnote 4] and 10 May 2024 prepared by the Home

Office and Ministry of Justice, which addressed issues under the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”) in relation to the Criminal Justice Bill. 2. This supplementary memorandum

addresses the issues under the ECHR that arise in relation to Government amendments, tabled on 14 May 2024 for Commons Report stage. This memorandum has been prepared by the Home Office and

Ministry of Justice. 3. The amendments considered in this memorandum are: * a) New clause “Assault of retail worker”. * b) New clause “Requirements in certain sentences imposed for third or

subsequent shoplifting offence”. 4. It is not considered that any other amendments tabled on 14 May give rise to issues under the ECHR. NEW CLAUSE: “ASSAULT OF RETAIL WORKER” 5. This new

clause creates an offence if a person carries out a common assault on a retail worker while that retail worker is at work at a retail premises. 6. A person who commits the offence will be

liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the maximum term for summary offences (currently six months) or to a fine or both. 7. The provision further provides

(by way of amendments to the Sentencing Code) that where a person is convicted of this offence, and that person has already, as an adult, incurred at least two previous sentences for the

same offence and if the court imposes a community order/suspended sentence in respect of the third offence, the community order/suspended sentence must include (subject to the exceptions

below): (a) a curfew; (b) an exclusion requirement; or (c) electronic whereabouts monitoring. 8. The court, however, will have a discretion to disapply the direction to impose these

requirements if the court is of the opinion that there are exceptional circumstances which (i) relate to any of the offences or the offender which justify the court not imposing such a

requirement or if it is not possible to impose a curfew or monitoring requirement (e.g., due to technical reasons relating to the offender’s residence). 9. The provisions engage Article 6

but are considered compatible with that Article. ARTICLE 6 ECHR 10. Article 6 ECHR requires that there be a right to a fair trial. The creation of a new criminal offence of assaulting a

retail worker engages that right. The provision complies with the criminal limb of Article 6, as the usual safeguards applicable to persons being prosecuted for an offence (such as the right

to legal advice) will apply. 11. For a successful prosecution, it will be for the court to find that the defendant has fulfilled all elements of the offence to the criminal standard of

proof. 12. The provision directs the court to impose certain requirements when imposing a community order or suspended sentence on the third occasion of a conviction of the offence, but the

court does have the power to exercise its discretion not to impose such a requirement where it is just to do so, or where the imposition is not possible. 13. As such, the new clause is

compatible with Article 6. NEW CLAUSE: “REQUIREMENTS IN CERTAIN SENTENCES IMPOSED FOR THIRD OR SUBSEQUENT SHOPLIFTING OFFENCE” 14. New clause “Requirements in certain sentences imposed for

third or subsequent shoplifting offence” creates a new duty on courts to impose a requirement that can be electronically monitored if the court imposes a community order or a suspended

sentence order on a person convicted of shoplifting who has on at least two previous occasions been sentenced for shoplifting offences committed anywhere in the UK. 15. This measure only

applies to adult offenders and at least two of the previous sentencing occasions must have been in respect of shoplifting offences that were committed when the offender was an adult. The

court will be required to impose either a curfew requirement, an exclusion requirement or an electronic whereabouts monitoring requirement. 16. The duty will not apply if there are

exceptional circumstances relating to the offences or the offender that justify not including a requirement that can be electronically monitored. For example, if the consent of the homeowner

whose cooperation is required to install the monitoring equipment is not given. 17. The Government considers this measure engages Articles 7 and 8 of the ECHR. ARTICLE 7 ECHR 18. Article 7

(no punishment without law) provides, “Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed”. The maximum penalty for

shoplifting goods worth £200 or under is generally 6 months (as section 22A of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 makes low-level shoplifting a summary offence unless the defendant elects for

Crown Court trial). The maximum penalty for theft generally is 7 years, and this applies to shoplifting of goods of a value in excess of £200 or for low value shoplifting where the defendant

elects for Crown Court trial. 19. The measure will only apply in circumstances where the court is already considering imposing a community order or a suspended sentence order, and if it

were considering such a sentence, the court would already be able to impose an electronically monitored requirement if appropriate. The measure therefore does not impact the overall type of

penalty that will be imposed (discharge, fine, community sentence, custodial or suspended sentence order), it merely requires the imposition of certain requirements for a third (or more)

sentencing occasion for shoplifting where the court is already considering a community order or suspended sentence order, all of which are currently available to a sentencing court. 20. The

measure is therefore compatible with Article 7. ARTICLE 8 ECHR 21. Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life). This is a qualified right which can be interfered with if the

interference is in accordance with the law and is necessary for the economic wellbeing of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, or for the protection of the rights and

freedoms of others. 22. An electronically monitored curfew requirement may serve two purposes – it is a punishment as it requires the offender to be at a particular place during the curfew

period, and secondly, it may prevent the offender from going out at a time when they are likely to commit further shoplifting offences. A curfew is a valid punitive requirement that may be

imposed whether or not the offender tended to offend during the evenings or at night. 23. An electronically monitored exclusion requirement interferes with an individual’s private life by

preventing the offender from going to a particular area or place. Its use may be justified if it is to prevent the offender from going to a shop or shopping area where they were convicted of

shoplifting offences, and would protect the rights of shop owners not to have their goods stolen by that offender and would protect their economic well-being. 24. An electronic whereabouts

monitoring requirement interferes with an individual’s private life because their movements are subject to constant monitoring whilst the requirement is in place. Its use may be justified as

it can inform the probation services if the offender is visiting other shopping areas (not covered by an exclusion order) where there may be the potential to commit further offences. 25.

The measure is therefore compatible with Article 8. Home Office and Ministry of Justice 14 May 2024 * Accessible here: ECHR memo. ↩ * Accessible here: 4240. ↩ * Accessible here: ECHR. ↩ *

Accessible here: Supplementary Memorandum. ↩ Back to top