Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Phillips of Sudbury (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Lords on Monday, 12 December 2005. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Identity Cards Bill 2005-06.


Identity Cards Bill

moved Amendment No. 121:"Page 5, line 39, at beginning insert ““intentionally””" The noble Lord said: The names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Anelay and Lady Seccombe, have been added to the amendments. There are six in the group: Amendments Nos. 121, 122, 125, 129, 132 and 157. They concern the nature of the penalties which may be imposed under the Bill on those who fail to comply with the requirements of the Home Secretary vis-à-vis identity cards and applications for them. It is fair to say that there has been a tendency in modern times for this Parliament to try to dress up as a civil offence that which traditionally would be treated as a criminal offence. The reason, plainly, is that the demands placed on the prosecutor of a civil offence are much less than for a criminal one. The standard of proof is a balance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt. There does not need to be intent in order to establish the criminality or the offence.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
676 c1073 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Disability Disclosure of information Data protection Codes of practice Biometrics Costs Convictions Delegated legislation Fraud EU countries Fees and charges Fingerprints Immigration EU law Identity cards Documents Fines Eyes Personal records Photographs National identity register Proof of identity Passports Registration
Legislation
Identity Cards Bill 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk