Member

This will land us in a rather strange situation. It would mean that a person convicted of a sexual offence would be able to argue in court that they have not been convicted of a particularly serious crime, but that a refugee found guilty of any other crime punishable by more than 12 months in prison would not. For example, a person convicted under Section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 is liable for up to two years’ imprisonment, so a refugee convicted of rape could argue that they have not been convicted of a particularly serious crime, but a refugee convicted of sending an offensive message would not be able to do so. This is an absurd situation. I hope that the Government will understand that this is a bizarre situation and will accept that Clause 48, as it stands, will introduce further ambiguity into the law, not less. I beg to move.