[3] Section 1 allows the High Court of Justice in England and Wales, and the High Court in Northern Ireland to make serious crime prevention orders containing prohibitions, restrictions, requirements and other terms where: The burden of proof of these issues is on the person applying for the order on the balance of probabilities (ss.
Orders must be of specified duration, not exceeding five years (s.14) A serious crime prevention order is a new kind of civil injunction, breach of which is a crime,[4] punishable on summary conviction in a magistrates' court by up to six months' imprisonment and a fine of up to level 5 on the standard scale.
A person has been involved in serious crime if he has (s. 2): An order imposed on an individual, including a partner, can include requirements as to, but not limited to (s.5(3)): An order imposed on a body corporate, partnership or unincorporated association can include requirements as to, but not limited to (s.5(4)): An individual or organisation can be required to answer questions, or provide information or documents, at a time, within a period or at a frequency, and place, in a manner and form specified to a law enforcement officer](s.5(5)).
See Dennis J. Baker, Glanville Williams: Textbook of Criminal Law, (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2015) at Chapter 20.
In this article, I provide a doctrinal and theoretical analysis of the new independent direct liability offenses found in section 44-46 of Britain’s Serious Crime Act 2007 to highlight how independent offenses punishing acts of assistance and encouragement are fairer than making accessories and perpetrators equally liable under the law of complicity.
I also examine the conduct element for these offenses to determine whether it is apt for catching the sort of reckless encouragement that is often present in the joint enterprise (common purpose) complicity cases and conclude that it is.
The main shortfall of the offenses found in the Serious Crime Act 2007 is that they do not cover reckless participation.
Therefore, a variant of the section 45 offense with recklessness as its mental element would also allow for fair labeling and proportionate punishment."
On summary conviction, an offender can be sentenced to up to 12 months' imprisonment and a fine of up to level 5 on the standard scale.
Section 73 and Schedule 7 authorise certain bodies to conduct data matching exercises for the purpose of preventing or detecting fraud.
These provisions fall under the Sewel convention which demands the consent of the Scottish Parliament for Westminster to legislate on devolved issues.