Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill
Baroness Brown of Silvertown Excerpts(14 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Slaughter
My right hon. Friend is right. Only 40% of women who suffer domestic violence report it at all, and many go for years without reporting it. They certainly do not have the wherewithal to report it when they are imprisoned not only by violent relationships but by economic circumstances and by having to care for their children. That is what I meant when I said that the Minister does not live in the same world as those victims.
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
I have here a report from a local newspaper. Kay Atwal, a reporter on the Newham Recorder, describes the lives of women she has met, saying:
“Your mail is opened by your in-laws, you can’t call your family or friends and you are not allowed out of the house. Your days are an endless round of cooking, cleaning and clearing up punctuated by threats and criticisms. And hanging over you is the constant fear that you could be deported from Britain if your husband divorces you.”
Does my hon. Friend agree that women such as those could well be affected by the changes that the Government are making today?
Mr Slaughter
We all have similar cases in our constituencies, and I am sure that the Minister must have, too. Those are the people to whom he should be listening.
Prostitution: Newham
Baroness Brown of Silvertown Excerpts(14 years, 10 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lyn Brown
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many convictions there were for (a) kerb crawling, (b) soliciting for the purposes of prostitution in a public place, (c) keeping a brothel and (d) control of prostitution in respect of offences committed in the London borough of Newham in (i) 2008, (ii) 2009 and (iii) 2010.
[Official Report, 17 January 2011, Vol. 521, c. 652-53W.]
Letter of correction from Mr Crispin Blunt:
An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) on 17 January 2011. The figures in the table for the number of defendants convicted for keeping a brothel in the Metropolitan police force area were incorrect along with some of the information included in the footnotes that accompanied the table.
The full answer given was as follows:
Mr Blunt
The number of defendants found guilty at all courts for selected prostitution related offences in the Metropolitan police force area for the years 2008 to 2009 can be viewed in the table.
Information at borough level is not collated centrally by the Ministry of Justice.
Court proceedings data for 2010 are planned for publication in the spring.
Offence | 2008 | 2009 |
|---|---|---|
Kerb crawling | 165 | 117 |
Soliciting for the purposes of prostitution in a public place | 114 | 65 |
Keeping a brothel | 5 | 10 |
Control of prostitution | 16 | 4 |
1 The figures given in the table on court proceedings relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offences for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences it is the offence for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the offence selected is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe. 2 Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from large administrative data systems generated by the courts and police forces. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitable limitations are taken into account when those data are used. 3 Includes the following statutes and corresponding offence descriptions: Kerb, crawling: Sexual Offences Act 1985, S.1 kerb crawling Sexual Offences Act 1985, S.2 Persistent soliciting of person or persons for the purpose of prostitution Soliciting for the purposes of prostitution in a public place: Sexual Offences Act 1985, S.1 Common prostitute loitering or soliciting for the purpose of prostitution Keeping a brothel: Sexual Offences Act 1956 S.33A as added by the Sexual Offences Act 1967 Keeping a brothel for prostitution Sexual Offences Act 1956 S.34 Letting premises for use as a brothel Sexual Offences Act 1956 S.34 Letting premises for use as a brothel for homosexual practices Sexual Offences Act 1956 S.35 Tenant permitting premises to be used as a brothel Sexual Offences Act 1956 S.35 as amended by the Sexual Offences Act 2003 S.53 Tenant permitting premises to be used as a brothel for homosexual practices Sexual Offences Act 1956 S.33 as amended by the Sexual Offences Act 1967 Keeping a brothel for homosexual practices Control of prostitution: Sexual Offences Act 2001 S.53 Controlling prostitution for gain Source: Justice Statistics Analytical Services—Ministry of Justice |
The correct answer should have been:
Estates of Deceased Persons (Forfeiture Rule and Law of Succession) Bill
Baroness Brown of Silvertown Excerpts(15 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Nuttall
I was not aware of the precise age of the grandchild, only that he was a young minor. I apologise: the preamble to the law report does state that RS had a two-year-old son, so it is fair to say that at that age he was entirely innocent. His mother, as I mentioned earlier, was acting on his behalf to ensure that he would not suffer as a result of the acts of his murderous father.
The Law Commission embarked on an investigation of the matter. It was asked to explore ways in which the law might be reformed to prevent the apparently unfair outcomes of the sort that occurred in that particular case. In October 2003, the Law Commission published a consultation paper entitled “The Forfeiture Rule and the Law of Succession”. It was in July 2005—another two years having passed—that the commission published its report. We can see how the years passed—it was 10 years since the start of the case and 12 years since the original murder.
In the introduction to its report, the Law Commission stated:
“It is clearly right to exclude a murderer from inheriting, but it seems unfair to exclude the murderer’s children as well. This outcome appears arbitrary: it is not based on public policy, but it is a by-product of the way the intestacy legislation is drafted.”
The Law Commission’s recommendations in its report of July 2005 were, first, that there should be a statutory rule that when a person forfeits the right to inherit from an intestate through having killed that intestate, the rules of intestate succession as laid down in sections 46 and 47 of the Administration of Estates Act 1925, as amended, should be applied as though the killer had died immediately before the intestate.
The Law Commission recommended, secondly, that when a person forfeits a benefit under an intestacy through having killed the deceased, but as a result of the reforms, property devolves on or is held for a minor descendant of the killer, the court should have the power to order that the property be held by the Public Trustee, who should administer it so as to avoid benefit to the killer. Thirdly, when a person forfeits a benefit under a will through having killed the testator, the will should be applied as though the killer had died immediately before the testator unless the will contains a provision to the contrary.
The fourth recommendation was that where a person forfeits a benefit under a will through having killed the deceased, but as a result of the reforms property devolves on or is held for a minor descendant of the killer, the court should have power to order that the property be held by the Public Trustee, who should administer it so as to avoid benefit to the killer. Fifthly, when a person disclaims an inheritance either under a will or under the law of intestacy, the inheritance should devolve as if the person disclaiming had died immediately before the deceased. The sixth and final recommendation was that when a person loses a benefit under intestacy by dying unmarried and a minor but leaves children or remoter issue, the property should devolve as if that person had died immediately before the intestate.
The following year, in 2006, the then Labour Government accepted the Law Commission’s recommendations and included the provisions to implement them in part 3 of a draft civil law reform Bill which they put out for consultation in December 2009. Seven of the eight respondents to part 3 of the consultation on the Bill supported the reforms and agreed that the new law would be fairer and simpler to operate.
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
I have been listening with rapt attention to this modern-day “Bleak House”, although I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that the prose is not quite as eloquent as that of Charles Dickens. Given that the Bill proposes a remedy to the particular difficulties that the hon. Gentleman has highlighted in the cases that he has placed before us, is he not prepared to accept the Bill and allow it fair passage through to its Report stage?
Mr Nuttall
I certainly wish the Bill well. I am about to express my concern at how long it has been held up in the legislative process. The report from the Justice Committee referred to that.