Protection of Freedoms Act Oct 2012

LincolnshireYokel

Since no one else has posted it:

Part 1: "Regulation of Biometric Data"

• Chapter 1 makes provision in respect of the destruction, retention, and use of fingerprints, footwear impressions and DNA samples. In addition it covers profiles taken in the course of a criminal investigation. Under the new scheme provided for in this Chapter, the fingerprints and DNA profiles taken from persons arrested for or charged with a minor offence will be destroyed following either a decision not to charge or following acquittal.

• This Part amends or omits Sections from the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, and Crime and Security Act 2010, relating to the retention of fingerprints.

• Section 24 of Chapter 1 instructs the Secretary of State to make arrangements for a "National DNA Database Strategy Board" to oversee the operation of a DNA database.

• Chapter 2 requires schools and colleges to obtain consent of each parent of a child under 18 for acquiring and processing the child's biometric information.

Part 2: "Regulation of Surveillance"

• Chapter 1 creates new regulation for, and instructs the Secretary of State to prepare a code of practice towards, closed-circuit television and automatic number plate recognition. Chapter 2 amends the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.

Part 3: "Protection of Property from Disproportionate Enforcement Action"

• Chapter 1 reforms and repeals aspects of the powers to enter land and to review existing powers of entry legislation. It would implement restrictions as to the premises over which the power may be exercised, who can exercise them, and which conditions can be satisfied for them to be exercised.

• Chapter 2 makes it a criminal offence for a private person on private or public land to immobilise a vehicle (eg by clamping or obstructing), or to move a vehicle, with a view to denying the owner access to it. Section 99 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 is amended to extend and amend the powers of public authorities to move vehicles parked obstructively, illegally, or dangerously, including on private land.

• Clamping of vehicles and provisions relating to charging registered keepers of vehicles where a contract has been entered into with landowners or their agents, dealt with by Clauses 54-56 and Schedule 4 of the Act. These would have the effect of making it possible for clients to attempt to reclaim unpaid 'parking charges' from the registered keeper of a vehicle in cases where it is not known who was driving at the time of the charge notice being issued. Under the original wording of the Bill as introduced, clamping would be unlawful on private car-parks unless entrances are barrieredHowever, Clause 54 was amended at Report stage in the House of Commons such that clamping would be unlawful regardless of the existence of a barrier.

Part 4: "Counter-Terrorism Powers"

• Clause 57 reduces the pre-detention of terrorist suspects to a maximum of 14 days.
• Removes the 'stop and search' regulations of the Terrorism Act 2000 and reforms the operation of the power to search people and vehicles, in addition to creating new Code of Practice rules in respect to these powers.

Part 5: "Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups, Criminal Records etc."

• Chapters 1 and 2 amends the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 and Police Act 1997 with regards to carers and Criminal Records Bureau checks. The Bill also proposes removing the Controlled Activity and Monitoring sections from the Safeguarding of Vulnerable Groups Act.

• Chapter 3 creates a new body corporate to be known as the "Disclosure and Barring Service", which would adopt some functions currently held by the Independent Safeguarding Authority.

• Chapter 4 allows people to apply for the Secretary of State to disregard criminal convictions for homosexual acts by consenting adults under section 12 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956, or the "gross indecency between men" section of that Act. Clause 86 confirms the effect of a successful application would ensure the person is considered as having not committed, nor been charged, prosecuted or convicted of a homosexual act.

Part 6: "Freedom of Information and Data Protection"

• This part extends the existing Freedom of Information Act 2000, extending the scope of the Act and amending the role of the Information Commissioner. This includes widening the rules on applying for and receiving datasets from public authorities for re-use.

Part 7: "Miscellaneous and General"

• Clause 105 repeals section 43 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 which makes provision for trials on indictment to be conducted 'without a jury' in certain fraud cases. Sections 44-50 of that Act which make provision for trials on indictment to be conducted 'without a jury' where there is a danger of jury tampering, will not be affected by the Bill.
• Clause 106 repeals the restrictions that prohibit solemnizing marriages and civil partnerships during evenings and at night. Since the Marriage Act 1836 it has been forbidden to marry between the hours of six in the evening and eight in the morning.

The whoel thing is here


http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/enacted

peter_the_piper

Part two could be interesting. Could be fodder for getting rid of carpark cameras, via vcs V Hmrc. Unless the landowner puts them up they would be illegal as ppc's only have an enforcement role to help the landowner. Still think there is mileage with convincing councils that planning should not have been given to ppc only.

bazster

You didn't post the most relevant part for this forum, Schedule 4 (too long to post here).

The key part is Clause 4(1)

4(1)The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

I predict that this will collapse in the face of the first Judicial Review or the first case at the European Court of Human Rights, on the grounds that it is patently absurd and a breach of human rights to impose a liability on someone who was not party to the contract.

Also interesting is this, among the definitions:

“relevant contract” means a contract (including a contract arising only when the vehicle was parked on the relevant land) between the driver and a person who is—

(a)the owner or occupier of the land; or

(b)authorised, under or by virtue of arrangements made by the owner or occupier of the land, to enter into a contract with the driver requiring the payment of parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on the land;

One PPC has already taken this as overriding the decision in HMRC vs VCS (appeal) which stated that only the landowner, or someone with a licence to occupy, can enter into a contract for parking with the motorist.

My non-lawyerly take on it, however, is that it is what it is: a definition of a "relevant contract", nothing more. It doesn't change contract law, or cause a contract to exist where previously there was none. A contract for parking between a PPC and a motorist can't be a "relevant contract", because unless the PPC is the landowner, there isn't a contract at all.

The absurdity of this definition is blindingly obvious if you look at the reasoning in HMRC vs VCS (appeal), which goes roughly like this: if you park in Acme Superstore's car park, managed by Scumbag Parking Ltd., it is Acme Superstores who have offered you parking, Scumbag Parking can't make you an offer of parking because Acme Superstores have already granted you that right.

I get the distinct impression that clever government lawyers have deliberately worded Schedule 4 such that it offers the PPC's nothing, or at least nothing that will survive the first serious challenge - and the PPC's fell for it!

LincolnshireYokel

Yes im inclined to agree. having worked in local government and with civil servants in the DoE, its exactly how they would do it.

The Civil Service operates exactly as depicted in Yes Minister. They are loyal to certain people, and view other people with contempt, and have there own agenda. I suspect some of the civil servants who drafted that section have been stung by PPC's and the rest care nothing for them, and after a couple of conversations with the BPA, will have concluded as we have, that the BPA havent six legally inclined braincells between them, and the Civil Service know perfectly well the clauses they wrote in wont stand up at the first court challenge, but the BPA absolutely fell for it hook line and sinker.

Driver8

Very good thread with very good thoughts.

I wonder when we will have the presence of that super qualified legal expert Perky of the pies and say it's all tosh?

I for one have no doubt centuries of common law will never be overturned to satisfy the extortionate and blackmailing demands of your average PPC.

I sincerely hope they read this thread and weep.

HO87

Schedule 4 was sold to the government (via the Civil Service, of course) on the basis that without direct cost to them (indeed making a saving by means of the substantial reduction in small claims court costs - based on Lala-land figures and logic - the whole package would assist in the achievement of overall transport policy viz. the deterring of private car use.

In selling this the BPA knew full well that DfT wonks would buy in because of the way this would enable them to achieve their own and departmental objectives. For that reason there had to be no 'hard sell' the BPA was telling them what they wanted to hear. This same motivation is undoubtedly what lies behind the apparent cosiness between Haywards Heath and Swansea - and especially there with Capita desparate to tick some boxes. This is why we must keep up the pressure on Parliamentarians because it is only the rattling of cages that they can cause that will get to those at the DVLA and other wonks at the ICO and DfT.

[Deleted User]

Chapter 2 makes it a criminal offence for a private person on private or public land to immobilise a vehicle (eg by clamping or obstructing), or to move a vehicle, with a view to denying the owner access to it.

Does that mean that, if I came home one day, to find a car parked on my driveway, I can't park my car behind it, and have to instead park on the road, until the owner removes the offending car?

trisontana

How many times has that happened? The reason I ask is that that old chestnut "how would you like it if someone parks on your driveway" is often spouted by PPCs and their lackeys. I have never actually heard of this ever happening.

[Deleted User]

I didn't say it did happen.

I was asking what if it did happen?

Notice I said "if I came home one day, etc."

bazster

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

Does that mean that, if I came home one day, to find a car parked on my driveway, I can't park my car behind it, and have to instead park on the road, until the owner removes the offending car?

Apparently so. Although it seems that "public authorities" will henceforth have the power to remove vehicles illegally parked on private land (and we all know how quickly they respond...)

The act fails to show how the owner of the illegally-parked vehicle is supposed to remove his vehicle if, by accessing his vehicle, he would be committing another trespass.

What a stupid law. It could easily have been drafted so that it didn't apply to domestic residences. But what the hell, if someone parks on my driveway I will most certainly block them in, and let's see what happens when the owner calls the police.

bazster

trisontana wrote: »

How many times has that happened? The reason I ask is that that old chestnut "how would you like it if someone parks on your driveway" is often spouted by PPCs and their lackeys. I have never actually heard of this ever happening.

I have. Happens regularly to someone I know, and once happened to me, although the driver (who was in the house next door) immediately moved his car when I asked him to.