Proceeding contribution from Mike O'Brien (Labour) in the House of Commons on Monday, 12 June 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Fraud Bill [HL].
Fraud Bill [Lords]
The hon. Gentleman referred to the Rose Committee. Let me refer him to the letter from Sir Christopher Rose, representing the views of senior judges. It stated:"““We said that it would be risky to repeal common law conspiracy to defraud, as it can be the most effective charge in a case where multiple defendants are engaged in a fraudulent course of conduct. There are limitations on the law of statutory conspiracy, which has had something of a chequered history. All the judges present at the meeting agreed the Bill should not repeal common law conspiracy to defraud.””" That is not an example of the Government deciding not to do something but of the Government listening. We have listened to the consultation.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 447 c548
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Disclosure of information Contracts Abuse Crime Conspiracy Criminal law Corruption Common law Credit cards Fraud Jurisdiction International cooperation Internet Organised crime Prosecutions Misrepresentation Victims Right of silence Sunset clauses
- Legislation
- Fraud Bill (HL) 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 12:16:49 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_329223
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_329223
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_329223