Proceeding contribution from Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 19 May 2009. It occurred during Debate on bill on Policing and Crime Bill.
Policing and Crime Bill
"Ought to know" is a recklessness test, which basically means that if the court decides that it is reasonable that the person should have known, given the information in front of him, that the other person was not consenting—that the person was controlled, or whatever definition we use—he would be committing an offence. I hope that I have answered the question. Now I shall respond to the intervention by the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz). He is right: the case has been made for new clauses 4 and 25, and I hope that the House will support them both.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 492 c1427-8
- Session
- 2008-09
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Children Databases Crimes of violence ICT Genetics Human trafficking Injunctions Protection Parliamentary scrutiny Offences against children Prostitution Sexual offences Sex establishments
- Legislation
- Policing and Crime Bill 2008-09
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 11:38:48 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_560289
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_560289
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_560289