Proceeding contribution from Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 9 November 2005. It occurred during Debate on bill on Terrorism Bill.
Terrorism Bill
: Article 5 of the convention refers to intention. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if the Government claim that they are fitting in with that provision by saying that the offence has to be intentional, they can do that with a subjective recklessness test but if they introduce the objective recklessness test that he described their actions would be outside its terms? Those of us who are interested in human rights believe that it is wise to stick to what it says in article 5.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 439 c398
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Civil liberties Criminal proceedings Codes of practice Appeals Detainees Applications Arrests Evidence Incitement Judges National security Prosecutions Police custody Terrorism Remand in custody Cryptography High Court Habeas corpus Encouragement of terrorism Sunset clauses
- Legislation
- Terrorism Bill 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-09-24 16:01:04 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_272633
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_272633
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_272633