Proceeding contribution from Stephen Hesford (Labour) 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
I am sorry, but I have already dealt with the point. A further bad point was made about a single judge dealing with the criminal burden of evidence and proof. It was suggested that somehow the instruction to deal with evidence that a jury gets could not be applied to a single judge. As the Solicitor-General said, it is applied in the Diplock courts. It is applied in civil jurisdictions, where judges apply not the civil standard of proof in serious civil cases involving allegations of fraud and the like, but the criminal burden and standard of proof. My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General also made it clear that the paid magistracy—deputy judges in the magistrates court—apply those principles all the time and deal with 98 per cent. of criminal cases. The idea that a High Court judge could not deal with fraud cases appropriately is ridiculous. It is just another example of the serial bad points that are being made.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 453 c1129
- 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 11:24:24 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_362307
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_362307
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_362307