Your World of Legal Intelligence
 United Kingdom | +44 (0) 20 7284 8080

Criminal Law Legislation Update

Document Cited authorities 2 Cited in Related
Vincent
DOI10.1350/jcla.2012.76.6.800
Date01 December 2012
Published date01 December 2012
Subject MatterCriminal Law Legislation Update
Standing Document..Contents .. Page1
Criminal Law
Legislation Update*
Laura McGowan†
Secondary legislation
Section 144 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders
Act 2012, creates the offence of ‘squatting’ in a public building. It came
into force on 1 September 2012 (SI 2012 No. 1956).
A person commits an offence if he is in a residential building as a
trespasser having entered it as a trespasser; the person knows or ought to
know that he or she is a trespasser; and, the person is living in the
building or intends to live there for any period. This is a summary only
offence.
Consultation Papers
The Law Commission has issued a Consultation Paper on the offence of
scandalising the court (Law Commission, Contempt of Court: Scandalising
the Court, Law Com. Consultation Paper No. 207 (2012), available at http:
//lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/docs/cp207_Scandalising_the_Court_for_web.
pdf). This is within the Law Commission’s project on contempt of court.
The Commission is seeking views as to the abolition of the offence under
the Crime and Courts Bill. This offence covers conduct likely to under-
mine the administration of justice or public confidence in the admin-
istration of justice, where the conduct does not impinge on particular
proceedings. Scandalising the court has been defined as ‘any act done or
writing published calculated to bring a Court or a judge of the Court into
contempt, or to lower his authority’ (R v Gray [1900] 2 QB 36 at 40, per
Lord Russell of Killowen CJ). There has not been a successful prosecu-
tion for scandalising the court in England and Wales since 1931. The
Consultation Paper considers that the offence lacks clarity about both
the conduct element and mental element of the offence; there is lack of
clarity as to defences; whether there is justification for retaining such an
offence in a democracy; and whether it is compatible with the freedom
of speech and the European Convention on Human Rights. Responses
were requested by 5...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT