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 agree with the Minister, who has dealt with the point. The second part of my speech is about the effect of what we are doing today and the reason we are doing it. In an intervention on the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) I suggested that one reason has to do with case management. The hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey in effect adopted that point in what I consider to be an erroneous argument. However, he emphasised for me the point that the provision is part of a package for the proper prosecution of fraud cases. Nobody in the House is not fully behind the idea that what we seek, in the House and in the courts, is the fair and proper prosecution of serious fraud cases.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 453 c1130
- 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 11:23:57 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_362311
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_362311
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_362311