Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Mayhew of Twysden (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 25 April 2007. It occurred during Debate on bill on Serious Crime Bill [HL].


Serious Crime Bill [HL]

My Lords, is the Minister’s objection to these amendments procedural or substantive? I had the impression that it was procedural when she said that it would be inappropriate to have the criminal standard of proof because the purpose of making an order of this character, or of applying for one, was not punitive but preventive. If one is on the receiving end of such an order and one is told that one cannot go there, live here, or have dealings with so-and-so, it does not make much difference whether it is one or the other. If, on the other hand, the objection is substantive, how does that stand up to her concession to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, that, in any event, the courts will, in a case of this character, apply the civil standard of proof so toughly asto be virtually indistinguishable from the criminal standard? Is it one or the other?


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
691 c675-6 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Disclosure of information Admissibility of evidence Criminal proceedings Crime prevention Crime Companies Civil proceedings Aiding and abetting Electronic surveillance Evidence Intelligence services Firearms Judiciary Liability Learning disability Judgements Inchoate offences Northern Ireland Offensive weapons Lord Chancellor's Department Mental health Terrorism Security Wales Serious Organised Crime Agency High Court Serious crime prevention orders
Legislation
Serious Crime Bill (HL) 2006-07
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk