Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Lloyd of Berwick (Crossbench) in the House of Lords on Thursday, 18 January 2007. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee proceeding on Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill.


Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill

I am very much obliged to the noble Lord for drawing attention to this fact. In many civil cases, the limitation period will be extended. That is the reason why I gave the illustrations of when it would be, but that is the very reason why I am not tying the limitation period to a specific period of six years, I am tying it to what would be the limitation period in civil cases. That may, as the noble Lord has pointed out, be extended for various reasons where, for one reason or another, the negligence has not, or could not be, discovered, and it may be much longer than the six years. But that there should be a limitation period seems to me to be in the highest public interest. Perhaps I may mention one other thing, which I should have mentioned. The whole idea of limitation is not—in case it might otherwise be thought—an idea of the judges; it was something on which Parliament has insisted for, I would think, many hundreds of years. The noble Lord is a better legal historian than I, but I would think that the first limitation provision was certainly laid in the seventeenth century. So this is not a new idea of the judges; it is something that Parliament has always insisted on.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
688 c298GC 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Compensation Courts Companies Court orders Convictions Crown Prosecution Service Corporate manslaughter Enforcement Jurisdiction Health and safety Judgements Powers Prosecutions Publicity Limitation of actions Negligence Victims
Legislation
Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill 2005-06 to 2006-07
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk