---

Terrorism Bill

As the noble Baroness has acknowledged, she has placed the Committee at a considerable disadvantage. We are attempting to discuss a clause, the structure of which we do not yet know, as the noble Baroness has said that she will be amending it. I have listened carefully to what she has had to say. Perhaps I may quote exactly what she said on this issue. There would be a defence for an individual if he was able to show that he ““did not endorse”” and ““did not intend””. Was my noble friend indicating that she is going to incorporate intent into this clause? If I heard her correctly, she said that if someone could show that he did not intend an action, he would have an adequate defence in respect of the mischief expressed in Clause 2(1) and (2). I am not a lawyer so perhaps the issue that I do not understand is that of the burden of proof. Is my noble friend saying that the notion of intent will be a defence and that the defendant would have to prove that he did not intend, or, when she says that someone ““did not endorse”” and ““did not intend””, that it would be the task of the prosecution to demonstrate that the individual did have such an intent. On Monday, I pointed out the anomaly that intent already exists in Clause 2(9)(d) but does not appear in Clause 2(9)(b), on which we have been asked to focus our attention, but I am still puzzled, when she has used the words ““did not intend”” and has drawn our attention to the notion of intent in subsection (9)(d), that she appears to resist the concept of intent. Maybe we have all misunderstood the amendments she intends to bring forward and she does intend to introduce intent.