Search results
By contrast, law enforcement is broader, involves civil and criminal justice agencies, and can incorporate administrative and regulatory law mechanisms and even alternative dispute resolution as a means of resolving disputes and ensuring appropriate redress.
Nov 22, 2011 · To qualify as legal enforcement, an exercise of power must be grounded in a secondary enforcement rule. In short, legal enforcement is the activity by which a legally constituted power is applied to make the law’s dictates actual. This is an efficacy -based model of legal enforcement—enforcement as efficacy.
Law enforcement is the activity of some members of government who act in an organized manner to enforce the law by discovering, investigating, deterring, rehabilitating, or punishing people who violate the rules and norms governing that society. [1] The term encompasses police, Courts and corrections.
- Executive summary
- Measure 1
- Measure 2
- Annex A
1. On 24th January 2023, the Home Office launched an 8-week consultation on two legislative measures to improve the law enforcement response to serious and organised crime.[footnote 1] The consultation aimed to gauge the views of the public, law enforcement agencies, and other organisations on the design of these proposals.
2. The consultation was open to the public. We made use of different media to encourage as many people as possible to make their views known. We wrote to over 35 organisations directly inviting them to provide input and attended stakeholder engagement events, where we invited views from various experts within their fields.
3. The consultation asked for views on the following measures:
•Measure 1: New offences to criminalise the making, modifying, supplying, offering to supply and possession of articles for use in serious crime; and
•Measure 2: Proposals to strengthen and improve the functioning of Serious Crime Prevention Orders (SCPOs).
4. The total number of responses was 57. Not all respondents answered all questions.
Question 1: Do you think that the current offences are sufficient to tackle the issue of supply of articles for use in serious and organised crime?
1. We asked respondents to tick one of the following responses and explain the reason for their answer. The provided responses were: I. Yes, the current offences are sufficient; II. No, the current offences are insufficient; III. Don’t know. 2. Of those who responded to this question, the majority agreed that the current offences were insufficient. Law enforcement and criminal justice partners were overwhelmingly supportive, emphasising that the current legislative framework had not kept pace with an increase in technologies exploited by criminals. 3. Of those who responded that current offences were sufficient, many raised concerns with prohibiting encrypted communication devices. These comments are expanded under question 3. Government response 4. The Government’s position is, along with the majority of respondents, that the current offences are not sufficient to effectively tackle serious and organised crime. Manufacturers, modifiers and suppliers profit from the supply of such articles to serious criminals but keep enough distance from the offences being carried out to avoid facing consequences. 5. Similarly, where people are found in possession of articles in circumstances which point to involvement in serious crime, it can be difficult to show the level of knowledge or intention that would be required to prosecute them for a criminal offence.
Question 2: Which of the proposals for new criminal offences do you think should be pursued?
6. We asked respondents to tick one of the following responses and explain the reason for their answer. The provided responses were: a) Option 1 (lower evidential threshold and specified articles) b) Option 2 (higher evidential threshold and no specified articles) c) None d) Other - if ‘other’ please explain your answer (Max 250 words) 7. Of those who responded to this question, there was no clear majority response. Between options 1 and 2, a small majority chose option 1. Multiple respondents raised concerns that option 2 would be challenging to prove given its breadth and higher evidential threshold, whilst option 1 would make the offence simpler and more practical to implement. However, others argued that option 1 (lower threshold and specified articles) could be difficult to enforce as articles could be frequently modified to evade the article’s legal definition. 8. A substantial number of those who responded ‘other’ asked the Government to consider a third option which provides a combination of options 1 and 2. This would include a specified list at the lower evidential threshold, as well as the inclusion of ‘any article that has reasonable grounds to suspect’ at the higher evidential threshold. Government response 9. The Government has analysed all responses to this question and has further developed option 1 – a lower threshold and specified articles defined in legislation. This is to provide the public and businesses with certainty about what the law will and will not encompass. Whilst accepting this option is less flexible than an unspecified list, this offence would include a power under secondary legislation to amend and add to the list of specified articles to ensure that the list can be updated as serious crime evolves. The Government notes that defining articles will require careful consideration to ensure the offence does not inadvertently capture the use of widespread articles that are not in scope of this legislation.
Question 3: Which articles do you think should be listed for option 1? (Lower threshold and specified articles)
10. We asked respondents to tick all of the options that should be listed and provided an opportunity for respondents to list other articles. The articles listed and given options were: a) Vehicle concealments b) Sophisticated encrypted communication devices c) Digital templates for 3D-printed firearm components d) Pill Presses e) Other – if ‘other’ please provide details 11. Of those who responded to this question, there were differing views on which of the above articles should be included, with a minority of respondents agreeing with all four. Throughout the consultation response, sophisticated encrypted communication devices proved most controversial. Many respondents argued that given the ubiquitous use of encrypted technologies, law enforcement and criminal justice partners could face substantial difficulty in identifying those which should be considered criminally dedicated. Some highlighted that challenging private communication methods could raise human rights concerns whilst harming technological innovation. Defining what counts as a ‘sophisticated’ level of modification to a device would also prove challenging. Government response 12. The Government has taken on board the evidence provided by law enforcement partners, including that which is operationally sensitive, and has developed legislation that will include vehicle concealments, templates for 3D-printed firearm components and pill presses in its defined set of articles. We do not propose including sophisticated communication devices at this time, recognising the number of concerns raised and ensuring that this legislation does not inappropriately criminalise technologies used in everyday lawful activity. In addition, electronic devices used to steal vehicles was also put forward by a number of respondents. We have included new criminal offences in the Criminal Justice Bill to prohibit the use of these devices to combat vehicle theft. Other articles were put forward by respondents, some of which we will consider further for inclusion using the secondary power once the legislation has been commenced. 13. The Government recognises the need to increase public awareness of the specified articles and their potential use for criminal activity.
Question 16: We propose enabling HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC), the NCA, the Police (in cases other than terrorism) and British Transport Police (BTP) to apply directly to the High Court for a Serious Crime Prevention Order (SCPO). Do you Agree?
56. We asked respondents if they agreed with the Government’s proposal to allow HMRC, the NCA, the Police (in cases other than terrorism) and BTP to apply directly to the High Court for an SCPO and to explain the reason for their answers. 57. Of those who responded to this question, the majority agreed with the proposal to enable all four additional bodies to apply directly to the High Court for an SCPO. One respondent highlighted that careful consideration would be required to ensure the application process does not become overly resource intensive. 58. Some respondents commented that all police forces should have this power, including the Civil Nuclear Constabulary and Ministry of Defence Police (MDP) for reasons of national security. Another respondent asked for clear guidance and standard operating procedures on what constitutes serious crime and when these orders would be appropriate. Government response 59. The Government’s position is to ensure that these frontline agencies leading investigations into relevant conduct can apply directly to the High Court where an SCPO is considered appropriate. In addition to those parties that we consulted on we will also add the Ministry of Defence Police (MDP) - see response to Q.17 below. The inclusion of both BTP and MDP is to provide parity with the other 43 police forces given their roles in tackling serious and organised crime. 60. It is likely that in many cases where criminal proceedings are not being pursued, these agencies will be best placed to lead the process of applying for an SCPO, as they will already have in-depth knowledge of the case and the relevant technical subject matter expertise. This measure would streamline the current SCPO application process and may also help to ensure that High Court SCPOs can be used more frequently where appropriate. 61. Under this proposal, HMRC, the NCA, BTP, MDP and the police will be required by law to consult the CPS prior to making an application to the High Court for an SCPO. The Home Office will work closely with the CPS, HMRC, the NCA, BTP, MDP and the police to put in place a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) setting out a formal framework for this consultation process to ensure a shared understanding amongst all parties of their roles and responsibilities in the process of applying to the High Court for an SCPO.
Question 17: Apart from HMRC, the NCA, the Police, BTP, the CPS, and the SFO, are there any other agencies who think you should be able to apply to the High Court for an SCPO? Please list.
62. We asked respondents if there were any other agencies who should be able to apply to the High Court for an SCPO. 63. Agencies listed from respondents were: 1. Trading standards (3 suggestions) 2. Ministry of Defence Police (2 suggestions) 3. Local authorities (2 suggestions) 4. RSPCA (2 suggestions) 5. Civil Nuclear Constabulary 6. DVLA 7. Natural Resources Wales 8. Probation 9. Border Force 10. Home Office Immigration Enforcement 11. Environment Agency 12. Foods Standard Agency Government response 64. Following engagement with law enforcement partners and the views provided in the public consultation, the Government’s position is that the right balance is to widen the applicant list to the main law enforcement agencies - the NCA, HMRC, the police, BTP, and MDP. The MDP’s inclusion is to provide parity with the other 43 police forces (and BTP) given its role in tackling serious and organised crime.
Question 18: We propose enabling the Crown Court to make an SCPO on acquittal for a serious offence. Do you agree?
65. We asked respondents if they agreed with the Government’s proposal to enable the Crown Court to make an SCPO on acquittal for a serious offence and to explain the reasoning behind their answer. 66. Of those who responded to this question, the majority agreed with the Government’s proposal. Respondents highlighted that SCPOs on acquittal would allow the Judge to make a decision based on the widest range of possible evidence, and therefore better protect the public even when the criminal evidential burden had not been met. 67. Respondents who disagreed were concerned about the use of civil orders on acquittal and the balance with human rights, noting that such cases could be subject to legal challenge. Government response 68. The Government will seek to enable the Crown Court to impose an SCPO on acquittal on application from the CPS or the SFO under Section 19 of the SCA 2007.[footnote 9] This measure will make it easier and quicker for an SCPO to be obtained where appropriate. Currently, under the Serious Crime Act 2007, Section 19,[footnote 10] the Crown Court can only make an SCPO when dealing with a person who has been convicted of a serious crime, not when that person has been acquitted. When a person is acquitted by the Crown Court, but there is still evidence that they have been involved in serious crime and there are reasonable grounds to believe that an SCPO would protect the public, proceedings currently have to start again with a new application to the High Court. The Government’s proposed measure would ensure better use of this power. Human rights aspects will be carefully considered, alongside guidance for Judges in utilising SCPOs.
The consultation analysis methodology
The questions stated throughout this document were the questions as worded in the questionnaire of the full consultation listed on gov.uk. Consultation responses were analysed, and a view also had to be taken on what correspondence constituted a formal response. It was decided not to include incomplete online survey responses (of which there were 108) on the grounds that the respondent had not formally submitted the data and may not have intended for their responses to be read. Data from responses to the quantitative (closed) questions in the consultation (i.e. those that invited respondents to choose an answer) were extracted and analysed. All qualitative responses (i.e. those responses to open questions or where a respondent had submitted a paper, letter or email rather than answering specific questions) were also logged and analysed. Findings have been reported in this document. There is an element of subjectivity when coding qualitative responses, this has been minimised by carrying out additional quality assurance. A number of detailed consultation responses were received that did not adhere to the formal structure and questions posed. These were fed into the Government’s response. Home Office, SOC legislation Consultation, January 2023: Strengthening the law enforcement response to serious and organised crime - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) ↩ United States Drug Enforcement Administration: Home : DEA.gov ↩ Serious Crime Act 2007, Schedule 1 details serious offences under the Act, including: Drug trafficking; Slavery and People Trafficking; Terrorism; Firearms offences; Prostitution and Child sex; Armed robbery; Money laundering; Fraud; Public revenue offences; bribery; Counterfeiting; Computer Misuse; Intellectual property; Environmental crimes; Organised Crime (participating in the activities of an organised crime group); Sanctions evasion; Inchoate offences: Serious Crime Act 2007 (legislation.gov.uk) ↩ Serious Crime Act 2007, Section 50: Serious Crime Act 2007 (legislation.gov.uk) ↩ Serious Crime Act 2007 (legislation.gov.uk) ↩ Customs and Excise Management Act 1979, Section 88: Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 (legislation.gov.uk) ↩ Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, Sections 47A - 47S: Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (legislation.gov.uk) ↩ Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing Act) 2000, Section 143: Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (legislation.gov.uk) ↩ Serious Crime Act 2007, Section 19: Serious Crime Act 2007 (legislation.gov.uk) ↩ Ibid. ↩ Home Office, Impact Assessment of proposals to strengthen SCPOs, January 2023: SCPOs impact assessment (publishing.service.gov.uk) ↩ Equality Act 2010: Equality Act 2010 (legislation.gov.uk) ↩ Back to top
This chapter surveys the theory of the public enforcement of law—the use of govern-mental agents (regulators, inspectors, tax auditors, police, prosecutors) to detect and to sanction violators of legal rules.
Sep 18, 2024 · This UK-focused dictionary provides clear definitions of legal and specialist terminology encountered in law enforcement. From bail and buccal swab to self-defence and sham marriage, it is a wide-ranging dictionary covering terms from the areas of criminology, psychology, pathology, forensic medicine, and financial investigation.
People also ask
What is legal enforcement?
Should enforcement be strictly necessary?
Is enforcement a legal norm?
What is public enforcement of law?
Enforcement, the Essay argues, is the activity by which a legally constituted power is applied to make the law’s dictates actual; it is a matter of law’s efficacy. Enforcement so conceived is constitutive of law’s identity as law, but not strictly necessary to it because law is not the kind of thing that has strictly necessary features.
