Proceeding contribution from Chris Bryant (Labour) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 10 June 2008. It occurred during Debate on bill on Counter-Terrorism Bill (Programme) (No. 2).
Counter-Terrorism Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
I presume that some of my hon. Friend's new clause would be redundant if Government new clauses 18 and 19 were to be added to the Bill. I understand the point that he makes about post-charge questioning on only new evidence, but I do not understand the point about evidence that"““could not reasonable””—" I think that that is a typographical error and should read ““reasonably””—"““have come to light before.””" What would happen if another suspect in the same case decided to provide some evidence that he had—in his mind—reasonably withheld until that point? He might be held to have done so unreasonably, in which case I presume that questioning on it would not be allowed.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 477 c190
- Session
- 2007-08
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Disclosure of information Data protection Codes of practice Crime prevention Criminal investigation Crime Administration of justice Detainees Armed forces Devolution Coroners Juries Intelligence services Documents Northern Ireland Police Public participation Police interrogation Terrorism Security Anti-terrorism control orders
- Legislation
- Counter-terrorism Bill 2007-08
- Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-16 01:07:45 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_483168
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_483168
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_483168