Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Hazel Blears (Labour) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 2 November 2005. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Terrorism Bill.


Terrorism Bill

In everything that I have said so far I have referred to ““knows or believes”” or ““has reasonable grounds for believing.”” If I did not do so at that particular point, it is not because I was seeking to ignore that provision. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway asked whether the statement by Cherie Blair would fall into that category. There are six tests: first, whether somebody knew or believed, or had reasonable grounds for believing; secondly, the likely effect; thirdly, the context under subsection (3); fourthly, whether there is a reasonable prospect of conviction; fifthly, whether it is in the public interest; and sixthly, whether the director of public prosecutions gives his consent. Those are six safeguards, or hurdles, to try to ensure that we are absolutely targeted at the mischief that we are dealing with. Several hon. Members said that I seek to rely only on the consent of the DPP, but clearly I do not. A range of safeguards and requirements need to be fulfilled in order for the offence to be completed.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
438 c873 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Criminal investigation Detainees Evidence Incitement Judges Police Powers Prosecutions Public interest Police custody Negligence Terrorism Training Remand in custody Encouragement of terrorism Sunset clauses
Legislation
Terrorism Bill 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk