---

Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response and to all those who have contributed to the debate. I take up one point that the Minister made about the relationship between disproportionality and the Human Rights Act. The Minister suggests that my amendment would not conform with the Act because of the way in which the European Court of Human Rights has interpreted the concept of proportionality. I respectfully disagree with him. The test in our law is reasonable in the subjective circumstances in which the defendant saw a matter. It is perfectly possible that behaving reasonably in the subjective circumstances in which a defendant saw a matter could be a disproportionate response that was, nevertheless, within the definition provided by English law. It follows from what the Minister said that, if his proposition is correct, our law itself could be in breach of the convention. That is precisely why we have used the concept of ““grossly disproportionate””—to make it absolutely clear that we do not fall foul of this trap, which I hope that I have just elucidated. I have listened to the wisdom of your Lordships on this matter, and it has given me grounds for reflection before asking your Lordships’ opinion. However, having reflected, I wish to test the opinion of the House. On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 91A) shall be agreed to? Their Lordships divided: Contents, 87; Not-Contents, 217.