---

Terrorism Bill

My Lords, I strongly support the amendment because the defences propounded in Clauses 1 and 2 require the defendant, generally, to prove a negative. Under Clause 1(6)(b) he has to prove,"““that the statement neither expressed his views nor had his endorsement””." Under Clause 1(6)(c) he has to prove,"““that it was clear . . . that it did not express his views””." The defence in Clause 2 is essentially proving a negative. Subsection (8) states:"““In proceedings against a person for an offence under this section it is a defence for him to show . . . that he had not examined the publication . . . that he had no reasonable grounds for suspecting that it was a terrorist publication; and . . . that the matter contained in the publication by reference to which it was a terrorist publication did not have his endorsement””." These are serious offences, both punishable by imprisonment of up to seven years. Consequently, it ought not to rest finally on the defendant to show a negative. Certainly he will be required to give evidence; certainly he will be required to raise the issue by saying, ““Well, I never endorsed this. I never knew about it. I never examined it””. But once that has happened [Interruption]. I shall burst into song in a moment, I can see, and it would probably be better for your Lordships if I did.