While technically correct to say that it was a Conservative Bill and a Labour Bill, it is not really a party issue. The previous and current attempts are based on the Law Commission's Report on Intimate Images. For reasons known only to that government, some proposals were brought forward in the Online Safety Act 2023, but others were left out. They would go into the Criminal Justice Bill, but it ran out of time when the General Election was called.
The proposals brought forward by this government will be the same ones, and are included in the LC report. Trying desperately to be not British and ignore modesty, both Clare McGlynn and I were quite heavily involved in the LC process. We both thought that a consent-based approach would be preferable, but the LC wanted an intent-based approach. Hence, Lady Owen's Bill, which Clare has helped her with, is consent-based, but unsurprisingly, the MoJ will revert back to the LC recommendations for their Bill. It is for that reason, the Bill will not be supported (and it would require Parliamentary time when, for example, the government is likely to require Parliamentary time to be given to the Assisted Dying Bill).
In terms of the wider intimate image offences you note, this is correcting an absurd anomaly. As noted above, some of the LC recommendations were carried forward in the OSA 2023 but not others. This created a position where the law on disclosing intimate images was altered but not the creation/taking, and so we have the absurd situation where there are some forms of intimate images that are illegal to distribute but not to take in the first instance. It can only be hoped that the CJ BIll is brought forward relatively quickly to close that particular lacuna. It demonstrates one of the unfortunate side-effects of repealing the Fixed Term Parliament Act. When the duration of Parliament was known, Parliamentary business could be scheduled accordingly and major pieces of legislation would not be lost. Of course, the counter-argument is that reverting back to the whims of the PM makes guessing and journalism more fun!
Thanks so much. I do find all this quite difficult to follow and the Ministry of Justice press release didn't make it any easier. Clare was very helpful and I'm grateful to you too for filling in some of the gaps.
Happy New Year to you, Joshua.
While technically correct to say that it was a Conservative Bill and a Labour Bill, it is not really a party issue. The previous and current attempts are based on the Law Commission's Report on Intimate Images. For reasons known only to that government, some proposals were brought forward in the Online Safety Act 2023, but others were left out. They would go into the Criminal Justice Bill, but it ran out of time when the General Election was called.
The proposals brought forward by this government will be the same ones, and are included in the LC report. Trying desperately to be not British and ignore modesty, both Clare McGlynn and I were quite heavily involved in the LC process. We both thought that a consent-based approach would be preferable, but the LC wanted an intent-based approach. Hence, Lady Owen's Bill, which Clare has helped her with, is consent-based, but unsurprisingly, the MoJ will revert back to the LC recommendations for their Bill. It is for that reason, the Bill will not be supported (and it would require Parliamentary time when, for example, the government is likely to require Parliamentary time to be given to the Assisted Dying Bill).
In terms of the wider intimate image offences you note, this is correcting an absurd anomaly. As noted above, some of the LC recommendations were carried forward in the OSA 2023 but not others. This created a position where the law on disclosing intimate images was altered but not the creation/taking, and so we have the absurd situation where there are some forms of intimate images that are illegal to distribute but not to take in the first instance. It can only be hoped that the CJ BIll is brought forward relatively quickly to close that particular lacuna. It demonstrates one of the unfortunate side-effects of repealing the Fixed Term Parliament Act. When the duration of Parliament was known, Parliamentary business could be scheduled accordingly and major pieces of legislation would not be lost. Of course, the counter-argument is that reverting back to the whims of the PM makes guessing and journalism more fun!
Thanks so much. I do find all this quite difficult to follow and the Ministry of Justice press release didn't make it any easier. Clare was very helpful and I'm grateful to you too for filling in some of the gaps.