Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 21 March 2007. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Serious Crime Bill [HL].


Serious Crime Bill [HL]

I was careful to say that, although in that case the person died, I was proposing a case in which they did not die. I shall not describe the body part that was cut off, cooked and eaten first, but it was not that which killed the man; it was what happened afterwards. Let us say that the cannibalism happened first. The ““BBC Search”” website is very useful sometimes. It is proper that a true victim should be protected. I appreciate that that is what the Government are trying to do through the drafting, but, as the Minister said, there will be cases in which on public interest grounds, as in the rather extreme example that I gave, a prosecution will have to go ahead. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 47 agreed to. [Amendment No. 101A not moved.] Clause 48 agreed to. Schedule 4 agreed to. Clause 49 [Prosecution of offences triable by reason of Schedule 4]:


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
690 c1261 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Disclosure of information Data protection Criminal proceedings Codes of practice Crime prevention Crime Conspiracy Aiding and abetting Fraud Inchoate offences Personal records Trials Information sharing
Legislation
Serious Crime Bill (HL) 2006-07
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk