Talk:Police and Justice Act 2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This is a rather restricted commentary on an important Act of Parliament, focussing on one comparatively minor aspect. The Act includes:

Part 1: Mainly about police forces

  • police Reform
  • establishment of a National Police Improvement Agency which will replace the Central Police Training and Development Authority and the Police Information Technology Organisation
  • amends the Police Reform Act 2002 in relation to the powers of Community Support Officers.

Part 2: Mainly about justice

  • amends the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 in relation to "Police Bail."
  • amends the Criminal Justice Act 2003 relating to "Conditional Cautioning."

Part 3: Mainly about anti-social behaviour

  • further provision about anti-social behaviour
  • every Local Authority is to have a "Crime and Disorder Committee."
  • "Parenting Contracts"
  • Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 (Part 3) amended.

Part 4: Addresses various Inspectorates

  • amends the various Acts which address the powers of the Chief Inspector of Prisons; Inspectors of Constabulary; the Chief Inspector of the Crown Prosecution Service; the Inspectorate of the National Probation Service and the Inspector of Court Administration.

Part 5: Miscellaneous Section

  • amends an Order in Council made under powers in the Extradition Act 2003 (controversial with extraditions to USA)
  • Computer Misuse Act 1990 amended with the creetion of certain offences including unauthorised acts with intent to impair the operation of a computer.
  • further provision relating to forfeiture of indecent photographs of children
  • Protection of Children Act 1978 amended.

At least some of these ought to be included in the article. Emeraude 15:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Major revamp[edit]

I have rewritten this article, basically around the notes I placed above. My reasons for doing so are as follows:

1. The bulk of the original article was from a discussion forum of the Open Rights Group (see [1]) so therefore almost certainly a copyvio.

2. It gave undue weight to a comparatively small part of the Act, failing to mention any other provisions at all. A Google search will bring up hundreds of references to the Act, most of which concern various local authorities discussing how they will respond to its provisions. There is hardly a mention of the computer crime issues.

3. It was not written, as had been tagged previously, in an encyclopaedic tone, and, in my opinion, could not be, given that it is basically a forum.

4. Neutrality had been disputed (though no explanation given as to why). This is almost certainly the case, given its origin.

This is an important Act in many ways and it may be that another editor who has knowledge of the specific affects on computer misuse may be able to expand on the topic. That goes for the other sections as well. Emeraude 15:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)