Proceeding contribution from Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 29 November 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Fraud (Trials without a Jury) Bill.
Fraud (Trials without a Jury) Bill
The Solicitor-General knows that the 2003 Act would not have been passed had agreement not been reached to require an order later on. Since that agreement three years ago, we have had the report of the Jubilee line case stating that jury trial was not a factor in the failure of the case, and a juror saying that jurors entirely understood the case. Has the hon. and learned Gentleman any new evidence from new sources that suggests that with all the other changes that are meant to shorten trials, the absence of juries will be of benefit? Has there been any new evidence over the past three years to support his argument?
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 453 c1094
- Session
- 2006-07
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Civil liberties Criminal proceedings Criminal records Fraud Juries Evidence Drugs Judges Jubilee line Judgements Northern Ireland Prosecutions Terrorism Trials Scheduled offences
- Legislation
- Fraud (Trials without a Jury) Bill 2006-07
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 11:24:28 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_362166
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_362166
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_362166