Proceeding contribution from Lord Lyell of Markyate (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Thursday, 7 January 2010. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee proceeding on Bribery Bill [HL].
Bribery Bill [HL]
As I understood the Minister, he said that the analysis by the Law Commission showed that it had not worked very well. But the cases—I can be corrected from those behind the Minister if he receives the information—of which there do not seem to be more than a dozen, are cases where people have tried to get out of their convictions in the Court of Appeal. I cannot bring to mind one case where a conviction was quashed on the basis of the argument about whether dishonesty ought to have been included. Even the definition of "corruption" which I read out today includes the word "dishonesty". That is the English dictionary direction. It has not been a practical problem. The Law Commission’s paper does not give any evidence that it was a practical problem, but if the Minister knows otherwise he will tell us.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 716 c34GC
- Session
- 2009-10
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords Grand Committee
- Subjects
- Business Corruption Advisory services Crown Prosecution Service Attorney General Foreign companies Ministerial powers Prosecutions Payments Public service Overseas companies Serious Fraud Office Revenue and Customs Bribery
- Legislation
- Bribery Bill (HL) 2009-10
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-22 02:22:26 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_605404
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_605404
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_605404