Proceeding contribution from David Howarth (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 9 January 2008. It occurred during Debate on bill on Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill.
Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill
The hon. Gentleman has not mentioned proposed new section (1A)(b) of new clause 8, which uses the phrase"““this was or ought to have been apparent to the person using such force.””" Does he agree that the problem is that that leaves in place the very problem that arose from the Martin case? The central problem with the Court of Appeal judgment was that it said that a mistaken belief that danger was threatened could be judged subjectively, but that a real danger had to be assessed objectively, using the criterion of reasonableness. New clause 8 does not deal with that problem at all.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 470 c352
- Session
- 2007-08
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Complaints Criminal proceedings Appeals Crime Bail Detainees Armed forces Crimes of violence Anti-social behaviour Blasphemy Burglary Arrest warrants Electronic tagging Incitement Judgements Offenders Northern Ireland Police Prisoners' transfers Prisons Prisoners' release Prostitution Overcrowding Scotland Sentencing Sexual offences Young offenders Sexuality Repatriation Strikes Anti-social behaviour orders Self-defence Youth rehabilitation orders
- Legislation
- Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill 2006-07 to 2007-08
- Criminal Law Act 1967
- Criminal Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1967
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2025-01-04 08:56:34 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_432784
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_432784
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_432784