Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Baroness Neville-Jones (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 3 November 2010. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee proceeding on Identity Documents Bill.


Identity Documents Bill

I apologise. The noble Baroness is absolutely right: I failed to deal with the issue. I am concerned that the effect of Amendment 13 is to shift the burden of proof. The prosecution in these circumstances would have to prove a couple of elements. It would have to prove, first, that the defendant knew that they were in possession and, secondly, that they had no reasonable excuse so to be. In Clause 4, which covers the possession of false identity documents with improper intention, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. It must prove improper intention. I hope that that clarifies the difference between what is there at the moment and what I understand to be the effect of the change that would be made by the amendment.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
721 c48GC 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Fraud Identity cards Personal records Personation Proof of identity Passports Vetting
Legislation
Identity Documents Bill 2010-12
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk