Proceeding contribution from Lord Lloyd of Berwick (Crossbench) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 7 December 2005. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Terrorism Bill.
Terrorism Bill
I am not happy with this question being dealt with as part of a defence. I think that this is possibly the point which the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, was worried about. Why is it not possible to catch those whom the Minister refers to as culpable by inserting in the substantive part of the clause, and not as part of the defence, the mental element of intention? That would enable you to catch those who are culpable and would let off those who are not. Why does it have to be done by way of a defence?
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 676 c650
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Disclosure of information Crimes of violence Crimes against property ICT Jurisdiction Incitement Fines Libraries Internet Journalism Police Prosecutions Publications Sentencing Universities Terrorism Training Research Students Academic freedom Propaganda Encouragement of terrorism Bookshops
- Legislation
- Terrorism Bill 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 13:30:31 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_284905
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_284905
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_284905