Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Goodhart (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 19 July 2005. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Fraud Bill [HL].


Fraud Bill [HL]

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his full answer to my questions. I understand the reasons why the Government decided not to accept the Law Commission’s version of Clause 3 and, while I give no undertaking on this matter, it is unlikely that we shall bring this amendment back at a later stage. I should say that in Clause 4, the word ““position”” is very flexible and we may end up with the clause being used in a way that may to some extent achieve what the Law Commission originally intended by its version of Clause 3. However, that is a matter that, no doubt, will be argued in the courts. The clause seems to be drafted in a way that goes somewhat wider than what would technically be a relationship of trustee and beneficiary, or agent, or any relationship which is specifically recognised by the law. However, having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendment No. 14 not moved.] Clause 3 agreed to. Clause 4 [Fraud by abuse of position]:


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
673 c1431-2 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Disclosure of information Contracts Data protection Abuse Crime Conspiracy Common law Fraud Exemptions Powers Misrepresentation Married people Sales Reform Caveat emptor rule
Legislation
Fraud Bill (HL) 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk