Proceeding contribution from Dominic Grieve (Conservative) 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
Yet, as my hon. Friend says. From my personal experience, it is crystal clear that juries can be made to understand such material as long as matters are explained in layman’s language, and most advocates should be, and are, capable of doing that. Help from the judge in summing up will also facilitate that. Therefore, I simply do not understand why we have suddenly identified this extraordinary category of evidence that is so complex that juries cannot deal with it. I am very pleased that yesterday I was able to secure the report on interviews with jurors in the Jubilee line case. That document has not previously been published, and if the Government had anything to do with not publishing it I can well understand why. That document was the basis of Mr. Wooler’s report—
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 453 c1108
- 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 11:24:20 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_362231
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_362231
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_362231