Proceeding contribution from Christopher Chope (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 14 January 2010. It occurred during Debate on bill on Canterbury City Council Bill.
Canterbury City Council Bill
Is it not even worse than that, because, in order to get compensation, someone would have to establish that the person who had seized the goods did not have a reasonable suspicion that an offence was being committed? Case law shows that the test of reasonable suspicion is less than that required to establish a prima facie case.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 503 c927
- Session
- 2009-10
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Direct selling Canterbury City Council Licensing Local government Nottingham Nottingham City Council Touting Street trading Canterbury
- Legislation
- Canterbury City Council Bill 2007-08 to 2012-13
- Nottingham City Council Bill 2007-08 to 2012-13
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-11 10:04:54 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_609455
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_609455
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_609455