Proceeding contribution from Lord Goldsmith (Labour) 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 can respond, I hope, equally briefly. Surely the person will not be found guilty of the offence, because he cannot possibly have acted dishonestly in those circumstances. It is therefore unnecessary to add this requirement. It also has the disadvantage that, if one puts something in, it gives an additional element for the prosecution to have to prove, rather than, as one would think more appropriate, the defendant saying ββI was not dishonest; look at the proof of that. My goodness me, they actually knew exactly what I was doing and that I had consented to itββ. End, one would think, of case; whether that is also end of amendment, I know not.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 673 c1456-7
- 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
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 13:25:02 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_263174
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_263174
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_263174