Skip to main content

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 β€œβ€œI 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 it””. 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