Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Dominic Grieve (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 9 November 2005. It occurred during Debate on bill on Terrorism Bill.


Terrorism Bill

I did acknowledge earlier, I hope, that there appears to be some slight difference between the test in amendment No. 34 and the test in the Bill as originally drafted. Certainly, if I may say so, this provision is much clearer, which is in itself a commendation. I would also like to put it on the record that I do not believe that either the Home Secretary or the Minister tried to deceive me; I think that there was a genuine misunderstanding between us as to what the Home Secretary was actually conceding. I also hope that the Minister will understand the reasons why, when I was talking about recklessness, I meant the common-or-garden English term as interpreted currently by the courts. It is for that reason, and because it will not do any harm to the successful prosecution of offences, that I prefer my version in amendment No. 19. With some regret, therefore, I have to vote against amendment No. 34.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
439 c405 
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