Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Baroness May of Maidenhead (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 7 July 2011. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Police (Detention and Bail) Bill.


Police (Detention and Bail) Bill

The answer to the question about the written note is that we were waiting for the judge who had made the decision to produce his own written judgment, so that it would be absolutely clear to us what we would need to interpret. What Greater Manchester police were dealing with was the oral judgment that had been delivered on 19 May. As I have just said, Mr Justice McCombe himself indicated that he did not think that the consequences would be especially severe. Only after further consideration did Greater Manchester police conclude that it would be necessary to appeal against the judgment. It is important to understand that it was not simply a question of looking at the legal judgment. It was for the police to consider, in operational terms, whether they were able to work within that judgment. When the written judgment was made available to them, the operational implications became clear. It is those operational implications that give cause for concern, and they are the reason for the Bill that we are introducing today.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
530 c1683 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Criminal investigation Bail Association of Chief Police Officers Legal opinion Police Greater Manchester Police Sunset clauses
Legislation
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
Police (Detention and Bail) Bill 2010-12
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk