29 August 2006
Tuckers Partner Andrew Keogh was interviewed by New Law Journal in relation to a report outlining the number of offences created since the Labour government came to power: The impact of Labour’s prodigious approach to offence-creating
A new offence has been created for every day the Labour administration has been in power. Criminal law solicitor and Tuckers partner Andrew Keogh tells Elizabeth Davidson why quality not quantity is important
Selling grey squirrels and importing Polish potatoes are just some of more than 3,000 new offences created by the government since Labour came to power in 1997.
Labour’s impressive tally includes 1,169 offences introduced by primary legislation, and 1,854 created by secondary legislation. The Home Office has produced 60 Bills and is responsible for 430 new offences. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has introduced 640 new offences, the Department for Trade and Industry has created 592, and the Foreign Office and the Office for the Deputy Prime Minister have produced 277 each.
The two preceding Conservative administrations seem sluggish by comparison on law and order, having been responsible for roughly just half that number of offences during their terms in office.
How has this frenetic approach to law-making affected solicitors? Has it helped oil the wheels of justice, or simply led to delays and extra costs?
Tuckers Solicitors partner Andrew Keogh, a criminal law solicitor, says he is not worried by the pace of change. “Many of these offences are regulatory offences or implement European directives, and most do not really create new offences,” he says.
“The Sexual Offences Act creates 35 offences but few of these are really new—just re-wordings of offences that already existed. I am not so concerned about quantity, because it is quality that is important. As the saying goes: legislate in haste, litigate at leisure.
“The Dangerous Dogs Act, for example, was the subject of litigation up and down the country for years, and many people are predicting the same thing will happen with some of the incitement to terrorism provisions in the Terrorism Act 2006, because the wording is unclear. There have been some really scathing comments made by judges about the Criminal Justice Act 2003, criticising the lack of pre-legislative scrutiny.
“Where the amount of new offences being created does worry me is where it acts as a cost driver for the legal aid fund. There is nothing wrong with upping the cost, but we’re working with a fixed sum of money. Under the bad character provisions, previous convictions can be admitted in court and that has had a massive impact in terms of cost and number of appeals.”