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
I have already explained that it is completely unnecessary to provide such a clause. We do not provide saving clauses or freedom of expression clauses on a range of other forms of offence, where it is not necessary. It is not something that we would advocate. It is simply wrong to imply that the offence could cover anything else, as some Members have suggested this evening. Freedom of expression or saving clauses imply that there is room for doubt and make the position less clear. The police and prosecutors, and indeed the public, need clarity and certainty about the scope of the criminal law, and the offence as it stands, without the saving provision in section 29JA of the Public Order Act, creates uncertainty. It clouds the issue and it should be removed. Many Members have made reference this evening to the concerns that have been expressed about purported incidents of over-zealous policing—
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 499 c121
- 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 13:45:35 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_593408
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_593408
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_593408