Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Thomas of Gresford (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Lords on Monday, 24 November 2008. It occurred during Debate on bill on Counter-Terrorism Bill.


Counter-Terrorism Bill

My Lords, as I understand it, the case made for this amendment is that a High Court judge, sitting as a High Court judge, is entitled to look at intercept evidence in an appropriate case, but when he is sitting as a coroner he is not so entitled. I fail to see the distinction: he is the same person, carrying the same responsibilities whether sitting as a coroner or in the High Court. Therefore, it seems right to me that he should have the power to disclose it if he thinks that it will not prejudice the national interest and is the proper way to determine the cause of death. The noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, asked what would happen if the judge made such an order of disclosure. The order could be challenged by way of judicial review in the High Court and beyond, so it would not necessarily be simply his final decision. There are so many points about inquests that require to be discussed. It is not helpful to say that there will be a Coroners Bill in so many months’ time. These inquests have been outstanding for a very long time. I am also concerned to hear, only this afternoon, for example, that the Ministry of Defence is refusing to support the legal costs of a family in an inquest next week.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
705 c1302 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Disclosure of information Data protection Databases Crime Courts Detainees Death Costs Coroners Electronic surveillance Evidence Genetics Judges National security Personal records Terrorism Remand in custody
Legislation
Counter-terrorism Bill 2007-08
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk