Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Skelmersdale (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 13 October 2009. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Policing and Crime Bill.


Policing and Crime Bill

There is no doubt that the Minister needs to give the Committee a great deal more information about the chosen level of proof. I do not want to be a thorn in the flesh but I must say that I am not certain that reasonable doubt is the correct level of proof. Surely if there was reasonable doubt that the respondent was engaged in gang-related violence, a full prosecution would be waged. Nevertheless, the balance of probabilities is not a high test and will bring a great number of people, many of whom may be completely innocent, into the court system, which, again, nobody wants. Can the Minister give us some examples of the sort of evidence that would be admissible and the protection that would be put in place to guard against injunctions being laid inappropriately on the grounds of hearsay or gossip? There is a distinct danger that that could happen.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
713 c171 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Children Codes of practice Crime prevention Appeals Crime Alcoholic drinks Crimes of violence Anti-social behaviour Bottles Licensing Harassment Licensed premises Injunctions Glass Local government Police Powers Public places Packaging Prices Plastics Sales Young people Anti-social behaviour orders
Legislation
Policing and Crime Bill 2008-09
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk