Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from David Howarth (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Commons on Monday, 23 March 2009. It occurred during Debate on bill on Coroners and Justice Bill.


Coroners and Justice Bill

That is entirely possible. There is interesting speculation, let us say, about the origin of the sub-paragraphs of clause 11(2)(a). One explanation is that they have to do with relations with the United States and friendly fire cases. However, another historical explanation has been given, and should perhaps be put on record. It is that objections came from the Metropolitan police because of what happened in the Rodney case, in which a young man was shot by the police. The inquest was not able to continue because of the problem—it was at least seen as such at the time—of wire-tap evidence not being admissible. There might have been other problems to do with the legality of intrusive surveillance. That is another possibility for the origins of the provisions.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
490 c71 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Children Disclosure of information Admissibility of evidence Data protection Crime prevention Courts Armed forces Death Coroners Juries Evidence Judges Legal representation Immunity certificates Foreign relations National security Northern Ireland Protection Parliamentary scrutiny Public inquiries Scotland Standards Terrorism Witnesses High Court
Legislation
Coroners and Justice Bill 2008-09
Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1976
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk