Proceeding contribution from Lord Kingsland (Conservative) 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 wish to follow up what I think is a very important point that has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. Of course, in undertaking this analysis, the CPS would have to consider, on the basis of this offence, only the actus reus of the offence. It would not have to consider the mens rea because there is no requirement for a mens rea under Clause 2. So the point of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, is indeed extremely important. The fact of the matter is that a wide range of people could be prosecuted simply because they had committed the actus reus but nota mens rea, and they would have to fall back on a statutory defence in court. Why should they be in court in the first place if they did not intend the offence of dissemination?
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 676 c651
- 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 13:30:35 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_284911
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_284911
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_284911