Proceeding contribution from Frank Dobson (Labour) in the House of Commons on Monday, 9 November 2009. It occurred during Debate on bill on Coroners and Justice Bill.
Coroners and Justice Bill
My hon. Friend is a lawyer and understands these things rather better than I do. Does he share the concern and puzzlement of quite a few people that in the de Menezes case, where some of the evidence was clearly related to national security, the existing law worked, whereas in the Azelle Rodney case, where we are told that national security is not at stake, we are also told that there is something so deadly secret that it cannot be disclosed? We should bear it in mind that we were told, not on the Floor of the House but by Ministers, that there was no chance of an inquest in the de Menezes case unless we changed the law—but we did not change the law, there was an inquest, and it was carried out quite satisfactorily.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 499 c64-5
- Session
- 2008-09
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Admissibility of evidence Coroners Homicide Freedom of expression Homophobia
- Legislation
- Coroners and Justice Bill 2008-09
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 13:47:31 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_593229
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_593229
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_593229