Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Robert Marshall-Andrews (Labour) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 9 November 2005. It occurred during Debate on bill on Terrorism Bill.


Terrorism Bill

That may well be right. That could be the solution. In the argument that I have just postulated, the problem with the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), well intentioned though it undoubtedly is, is that even leaving that recklessness—as in the case of R v. G—in the Act means that I would be caught, because I undoubtedly would foresee the possibility that someone out there would be comforted or encouraged by what I say. In those circumstances, I would be caught by recklessness, either under the old Caldwell recklessness or under R v. G, because a subjective test would be applied to me and I would own up. I would be guilty, under the Bill. I would have no choice but to say, ““I’m sorry, it’s a fair cop, guv. It shouldn’t be, but it is.””


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
439 c400 
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