Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Thomas of Gresford (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 21 July 2009. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Coroners and Justice Bill.


Coroners and Justice Bill

I am grateful for that assurance. The second matter that I took from his reply is that unless the nature of the conviction in a European Union country is clearly explained to a judge and shown to be apposite, the judge can ignore that previous conviction. I come back to the illustration that I gave earlier from my own experience of a person convicted in Belgium:—of what he was convicted and whether he had successfully appealed was absolutely unclear. Despite the involvement of Belgian lawyers and requests from the Supreme Court in Belgium, no one was able to clarify precisely what had happened, what he had been convicted of or what his sentence was. In those circumstances, I take it that the Minister would agree that the judge is fully entitled to say, "Well, it’s for the prosecution to show that this is a proper conviction", and if they cannot do that, the judge can ignore it.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
712 c1534 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Data protection Criminal proceedings Criminal records Community Legal Service Coroners EU law Legal representation Legal costs Electronic commerce Personal records Northern Ireland Police Proceeds of crime Photographs Offensive weapons
Legislation
Coroners and Justice Bill 2008-09
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk