Isle of Wight East MP Joe Robertson has warned that a new law aimed at tackling spiking doesn’t go far enough – and could allow offenders to walk free due to a major loophole.
As part of the Crime and Policing Bill, spiking is set to become a standalone criminal offence later this year. It will become a crime to administer a harmful substance to another person “with intent to injure, aggrieve or annoy”.
But Mr Robertson – who has been leading a national campaign on the issue – says the new law fails to cover reckless acts, such as so-called ‘prank spiking’, where drugs are slipped into drinks for amusement rather than with clear intent.
He says the legislation must be watertight to stop perpetrators escaping justice.
Joe Robertson MP says:
“I tabled an amendment to the Government’s Bill last week to ensure that all forms of spiking become a criminal offence, not just situations where there is a clear motivation or intent.
Much like dangerous driving, if your actions are so reckless a reasonable person would know someone might get hurt, the law should apply to you.”
Unusually for a backbench MP, Mr Robertson’s amendment was selected for debate and a vote in the House of Commons. It gained cross-party support from the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, Greens, DUP and Plaid Cymru – with 189 MPs voting in favour. However, Labour MPs were whipped to vote against it, meaning the proposal was defeated.
Despite the setback, Mr Robertson says the fight is far from over…
“Working together with Colin and Mandy Mackie from Spike Aware UK, we’ll now take this to the House of Lords, where the Government doesn’t have a majority.
If just one perpetrator walks free by arguing lack of intent because of a badly worded law, it will be a travesty. I’m determined not to let that happen.”
That’s mad that the bill couldn’t go through because Labour didn’t vote for it.
But why didn’t they??
The AMENDMENT didn’t go through, the Bill will. Not sure why the whip on this one, but I’d guess to allow it into law quickly. Proving intent is a tricky one, but this Act replaces the wording of the previous criminal acts (Offences Against the Person, 1861) which date back years, namely, administering an harmful substance. It can include giving someone a double if they’ve only asked for a single, or added vodka to the fruit punch.
The specific amendment, which on the surface a good idea, would cover the situations above and open the floodgates of possibly vexatious claims meaning the whole Act could have to be re-written.
If they wanted to bring an amendment, they’d have done better to be specific as to the chemicals used for lacing people’s drinks, eg, Flunitrazepam or other benzodiazipines.
Shocked that he cares considering he voted against the decriminalisation of abortion.
It would have been helpful if the article explained the reason the Government didn’t want to adopt the amendment. As I understand it, prank spiking is covered by the “intent to annoy” provision so this is not so much a case of excluding someone from culpability if they prank spike but rather that it is not necessary to define it as a specific offense in the same way given that a proportion of “prank” incidents will be relatively harmless and not intended maliciously. There is a fine line, sometimes between new laws which clarify and those which might result in the criminalisation of individuals for playing a joke. For example, a prank spike could include swapping salt for sugar in a sugar bowl resulting in someone putting salt in their tea. This is intended as a joke and unlikely to cause harm but could result in a criminal conviction. We must be careful not to invent more sledgehammers for the purpose of cracking nuts.