Proceeding contribution from Nick Palmer (Labour) in the House of Commons on Friday, 2 December 2005. It occurred during Debate on bill on Criminal Law (Amendment) (Protection of Property) Bill.
Criminal Law (Amendment) (Protection of Property) Bill
I apologise for having had to leave the Chamber temporarily. I want to check a point with my hon. Friend about the definition of ““building”” in the Bill. If one family were in a caravan and another in a tent on a campsite, the family in the caravan would be allowed to use the unreasonable force provision, but the family in the tent would not, because buildings cover caravans and not tents. Is that not another anomaly?
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 440 c529
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Crime prevention Crimes against the person Crimes of violence Criminal law Buildings Burglary Criminal liability Firearms Protection Police Prosecutions Property Victims Trespass Self-defence
- Legislation
- Criminal Law (Amendment) (Protection of Property) Bill 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 12:07:35 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_283088
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_283088
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_283088