Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Lloyd of Berwick (Crossbench) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 2 April 2008. It occurred during Debate on bill on Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill.


Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill

My Lords, I am sure that the first thing we will want to do is to read in Hansard tomorrow what the Minister said. That may shed some light on it. The mere fact that he has to offer to write to us shows that this is the sort of clause that should not be in legislation. It is intended to cover the appearance of injustice in only one case—the Sweeney case, to which the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, referred—where there was no injustice at all because the judge did exactly what Parliament said he must do. It therefore illustrates both aspects of my argument. It is a marvellous example of Parliament interfering where it is not wanted. Parliament is now asked to give judges greater discretion, but the discretion should not have been removed in the first place. It is a very good example of Parliament interfering in such a way as to make the judges’ task even more difficult than it already is. I hope that the clause will be considered for a second time in the Ministry of Justice. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
700 c1132 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Criminal proceedings Administration of justice Detainees Crimes of violence Prisons Magistrates' courts Sentencing Sexual offences Young offenders
Legislation
Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill 2006-07 to 2007-08
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk