Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Claire Ward (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

That is why we are ensuring that there is seamlessness between the subsections with the words "things said or done". That will ensure that sexual infidelity cannot be relied on in those circumstances. The hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield seemed to suggest that there is no support for the amendment, beyond some form of political correctness. I have to tell him that is quite contrary to the reality of the situation. We have received more than 40 representations, from individuals and groups, asking the Government to seek to overturn the vote taken in the other place. Those organisations are significant and varied. They include the Women's National Commission, Amnesty International, the Eaves group, Justice for Women, violence intervention programmes and a range of other rape crisis organisations and other groups that support women who have been raped. All the representations we have received have stated clearly that in the killing of a wife or girlfriend by a partner, actual or suspected infidelity has often been used in the past to reduce murder to manslaughter. The law should be clear that that is no longer acceptable. The penalty for infidelity should not be death, and partners who believe it is their right to kill should always go on trial for murder. In this instance, our concern is that men who kill women should not be able to plead the traditional argument that she was unfaithful.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
499 c96 
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