Proceeding contribution from Lord Elystan-Morgan (Crossbench) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 6 October 2010. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Bill [HL].
Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Bill [HL]
I have profound regard and respect for the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, but I am concerned at this stage not with whether the authority should be exercised administratively, executively or judicially, but with what the boundary of criminality is exactly in relation to the meaning of the words, "““that the person is or has been involved in terrorist activity””." My simple question is: does that possibly encompass a person who is a principal either in the first or the second degree, or a person who aids, abets, counsels or procures? In other words, does it extend that very considerable boundary of criminality, and if so, to what extent?
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 721 c141
- Session
- 2010-12
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Disclosure of information Compensation Civil liberties Appeals Assets Bank services Banks Court orders Advocacy Financial services Financial institutions Insurance International cooperation Money laundering Terrorism Stocks and shares Treasury Sequestration of assets High Court
- Legislation
- Terrorist Asset-freezing etc Bill (HL) 2010-12
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 18:27:09 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_666498
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_666498
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_666498