The Crime and Policing Bill has received Royal Assent, significantly expanding corporate criminal liability beyond economic crimes to cover all offences committed by senior managers. The Act reforms the identification doctrine, adopting the ‘senior manager’ definition from the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007, requiring prosecutors to prove only that an individual held a significant company position and committed the crime within their authority scope. Other measures include new offences targeting antisocial behaviour and retail crime, enhanced police powers (including warrantless entry to recover stolen goods), stronger protections for victims—particularly in relation to violence against women and girls—and further provisions to address child exploitation and terrorism.

The Home Office has reported that the Crime and Policing Bill is scheduled to be introduced in Parliament. Key provisions of the Bill include new warrantless entry powers for police to recover electronically tracked stolen items, the removal of the £200 de facto threshold for shop theft prosecution and enhanced protections for retail workers through a specific assault offence. The Bill will create new criminal offences covering spiking, child criminal exploitation and non-consensual intimate image recording. It strengthens existing measures around stalking, knife crime and child sexual abuse, including a new statutory duty to report abuse. It also introduces ‘Respect Orders’ to tackle persistent antisocial behaviour and reforms police misconduct procedures to enable Chief Constables to more effectively remove unsuitable officers. These measures will be supported by the recruitment of 13,000 additional neighbourhood police officers.

ARCHIVED: This archived Practice Note provides information on the data protection regime before 25 May 2018 and reflects the position under the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA 1998). This Practice Note is for background information only and is not maintained. This Practice Note considers the exemptions afforded by section 29 of the DPA 1998. These exemptions may be applied in specified circumstances where complying with obligations that are ordinarily imposed by the DPA 1998 would be likely to prejudice the purposes of the prevention or detection of crime, the apprehension or prosecution of offenders, or the assessment or collection of tax or duties (referred to in this Practice Note as 'the crime and taxation purposes'). For more information on other exemptions, see Practice Notes: • Exemptions to the DPA 1998 • Data protection—notice obligation exemptions • Subject access exemptions under the DPA 1998 • Non-disclosure exemptions under the DPA 1998 • Applying exemptions under the DPA 1998—reference table For a comprehensive introduction to the GDPR, collating key

1 General information Review period [Insert review period] Date of review [Insert date] Person(s) conducting review [Insert name(s)] 2 Data Criteria In the last [insert period, eg quarter] Over the last 12 months Total number of suspicious activity reports (SARs) received [Insert number] [Insert number] Number of SARs relating to money laundering [Insert number] [Insert number] Number of SARs relating to terrorist financing [Insert number] [Insert number] Number of SARs relating to proliferation financing [Insert number] [Insert number] Number of SARs relating to bribery and corruption [Insert number] [Insert number] Number

Corporate Crime analysis: The Crown Prosecution Service’s (CPS) Serious and Economic Organised Crime Strategy 2030 and International Strategy 2030 respond to the convergence of fraud, cybercrime, hostile state actors and serious organised crime, including drug trafficking, human trafficking and other organised immigration crime. Alexander Barbour, barrister at 33 Chambers, examines how the CPS intends to strengthen capability, modernise its use of technology and AI, expand international cooperation, and embed asset recovery and financial disruption at the outset of serious and economic organised crime casework.

The Theft Act 1968, s 4 defines 'property' to include money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property.

Corporate Crime analysis: Prosecutors should only proceed with cases under section 1 of the Malicious Communication Act 1988 (MCA 1988) where the interference with Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) (freedom of expression) is necessary and is proportionate. There must be sufficient evidence that the communication in question, in its particular context, is ‘more than offensive, shocking or disturbing’ and goes ‘beyond the pale of what is tolerable in society’. Where the prosecution itself is lawful, the jury should be directed that the law protects freedom of speech because it is part of living in a free and democratic society. Whether a communication is so grossly offensive that it amounts to a criminal offence and loses the protection of freedom of speech, depends on its content, the context in which it was sent and the purpose(s) of the sender. Written by Ria Banerjee, barrister at 5 King’s Bench Walk.

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. The Criminal Finances Bill received Royal Assent on 27 April 2017 and became the Criminal Finances Act 2017 (CFA 2017). For further information on the passage of this legislation through parliament, see Practice Note: Criminal Finances Act 2017—progress through Parliament [Archived]. Under CFA 2017, s 58 secondary legislation is required to bring the substantive provisions into force. There have been four pieces of secondary legislation published pursuant to this provision: • the Criminal Finances Act 2017 (Commencement No 1) Regulations 2017, SI 2017/739—this brought CFA 2017, s 47 (guidance about preventing facilitation of tax evasion offences) into force on 17 July 2017 and the rest of CFA 2017, Pt 3 (corporate offences of failure to prevent facilitation of tax evasion) into force on 30 September 2017 • the Criminal Finances Act 2017 (Commencement No 2 and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2017, SI 2017/991—this brought the provisions relating to the power to extend the moratorium period, information sharing in the regulated sector and further information

ARCHIVED: This archived Practice Note is not being maintained. It tracked the passage of the Bill through Parliament to its publication as an Act, and highlighted key events and documents including published amendments relevant to the progress of the legislation. This Practice Note is being retained for historic interest. The Criminal Finances Bill (CFB) completed its passage through Parliament and received Royal Assent on 27 April 2017. The Criminal Finances Act 2017 (CFA 2017) made significant changes to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA 2002) and other legislation including the Terrorism Act 2000 (TA 2000); these enable enforcement authorities to better pursue and capture the proceeds of crime and terrorist financing. It also created corporate criminal liability for failing to prevent the facilitation of tax evasion and introduced other offences relating to the power to make unexplained wealth orders (UWOs). The Act also extended the powers available to various enforcement authorities to conduct criminal investigations. For further information on the new corporate offences of failure to prevent tax evasion, see Practice

A statutory body that considers claims for injury caused by criminal acts and awards compensation.

This Practice Note considers the amended 2012 Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme which came into force on 13 June 2019. Various consultations on the Scheme have taken place but no significant amendments have been made. Time periods for lodging the application A claimant has two years from the date of the incident to apply for compensation. The burden is on the applicant to show that they did not fail to comply with a reasonable expectation that they would pursue a claim in a timely manner. Under the amended Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2012, a claims officer may extend the time limit where satisfied that: • due to exceptional circumstances the applicant could not have applied earlier, and • evidence presented in support of the application means it can be determined without further extensive enquires by the claims officer In the Scottish case of MM v Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, the Outer House found that the words ‘could not have applied earlier’ were apt to cover a wide range of

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: There were a variety of issues that occupied the Upper Tribunal (UT) relating to Criminal Injuries Compensation during 2025, the most important of which ended up in the Court of Appeal (LXR v FTT and CICA) which provides an extremely helpful analysis of the provisions of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2012 so far as they relate to the re-opening of previously decided cases. It is compulsory reading for any practitioner who is considering undertaking such a challenge. Other issues addressed by the UT include the discretions available to the CICA when deciding to override time limits for making applications and the scope and definitions of a qualifying relative for the purposes of the provisions relating to fatal claims. The UT also provided further reinforcement around the principles that apply to the Scheme when addressing attacks by animals and specifically by dogs. Written by Neil Sugarman, Consultant, GLP Solicitors, Bury, Greater Manchester.