Proceeding contribution from Dominic Grieve (Conservative) 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)
My understanding—it may be the hon. Gentleman's—is that the reason the Government suddenly came forward with these proposals was a problem encountered in one particular case, which interestingly enough is not terrorist related. Does he agree that the oddity is that the anxiety that the full facts should emerge in that one particular case, which is given as the justification for the change, seems in a way to be completely counterbalanced by the fact that even if the facts emerge correctly in that case and in the way that Government intend through this process, there will not be the transparency that will enable the verdict to be accepted?
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 477 c242
- 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 01:08:04 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_483272
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_483272
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_483272