Skip to main content

1-20 of 94 results for house:"House of Lords"

Legislation X
Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill 2006-07 to 2007-08
Subject X
Journalism

Type

House

Session

Year

Department

Member

Primary member

Answering member

Legislative stage

Legislation

More
Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill 2006-07 to 2007-08 (94)

Subject

More

Publisher


Show detailed: On Off
Results: 10 20 50 100
Sort by: Newest first Oldest first

My Lords, I hope my noble friend will be able to look sympathetically at the wisdom and good sense in the amendment. It has clearly been thoroughly thought about within the Joint Committee on Human Rights and we should do the committee the courtesy of demonstrating that we are thinking...

Member
Lord Judd (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
23 April 2008
Reference
700 c1510-1
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I have provoked exactly the response I had hoped for from the noble Earl. I am aware that time is short today. This is the fourth and last day of Report. Although the reason for those circumstances can be laid largely at the Government’s door, I do not...

Member
Lord Kingsland (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
23 April 2008
Reference
700 c1517-8
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report. Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to. Clause 75 [Reasonable force for purposes of self-defence etc.]

Member
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
23 April 2008
Reference
700 c1507
House
House of Lords

moved Amendment No. 88: 88: Clause 75, page 53, line 39, after ““D”” insert ““reasonably”” The noble Earl said: My Lords, now that the audience has been reduced to about two, I can start this afternoon’s proceedings. In the defence of someone who reacts with force to an intruder into...

Member
Earl of Onslow (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
23 April 2008
Reference
700 c1507
House
House of Lords

My Lords, perhaps I may make one very quick point. When we discussed this matter in the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the Martin case did not influence us. However, the committee was influenced by an excuse for doing something being based on such an unreasonable belief that no one...

Member
Earl of Onslow (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
23 April 2008
Reference
700 c1510
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I support the noble Earl. I draw your Lordships’ attention to the well argued view in the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, to which he referred. Unlike the Government’s position, which is simply to codify the existing law, this amendment, put forward with the support...

Member
Lord Thomas of Gresford (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
23 April 2008
Reference
700 c1507-8
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I question the appropriateness of this clause. A later amendment, to which the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, has, among others, put his name, proposes that the clause should simply be taken out. If I may just for a moment forget the noble Earl’s amendment, to which...

Member
Lord Neill of Bladen (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
23 April 2008
Reference
700 c1508-10
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I immediately agree that one should not pick and choose, but one seeks to avoid the curate’s egg problem in setting out the fundamental aspects of the common law of self-defence. I say that because one can easily see why statute might not be the area in which...

Member
Lord Davidson of Glen Clova (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
23 April 2008
Reference
700 c1529
House
House of Lords

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps he will respond to this problem. I think he stated that this provision does not deal with the whole law of self-defence but just clarifies a part of it. That sounds a little like the curate’s egg: there is a bad...

Member
Lord Neill of Bladen (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
23 April 2008
Reference
700 c1529
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I immediately accept that the noble Lord said that. I was trying to suggest that perhaps there has been a rather more forceful approach in following the noble Lord’s argument this afternoon—no more than that. The very fact that the matter keeps coming back before Parliament may suggest...

Member
Lord Davidson of Glen Clova (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
23 April 2008
Reference
700 c1528-9
House
House of Lords

My Lords, with the greatest respect, if the noble and learned Lord would like to read my Second Reading speech, that is precisely what I said. This is no surprise.

Member
Lord Thomas of Gresford (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
23 April 2008
Reference
700 c1528
House
House of Lords

My Lords, this clause is intended either to alter the law or to be a complete exposition of the law. On the whole, I think that Her Majesty’s judges are in a better position than Parliament to expound the whole law. Another point about the clause is rather dangerous; the...

Member
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
23 April 2008
Reference
700 c1526
House
House of Lords

My Lords, the wording of the amended Clause 75 will give an overbusy Court of Appeal Criminal Division an enormous amount of extra work. Some of this has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, but there are other phrases, with which I will not trouble the...

Member
Baroness Butler-Sloss (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
23 April 2008
Reference
700 c1526-7
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I have no doubt at all that the clause as amended by the Government would give wholly the wrong impression with regard to the onus of proof. The government amendment states: "““If D claims to have held a particular belief as regards the existence of any circumstances””." That...

Member
Lord Elystan-Morgan (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
23 April 2008
Reference
700 c1527
House
House of Lords

My Lords, the amendment is straightforward in that it would simply strike out the clause. However, the Government suggest that, if that were done, it would risk undoing much of the good work that has been done in this House to deal with this area thus far. During the passage...

Member
Lord Davidson of Glen Clova (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
23 April 2008
Reference
700 c1527-8
House
House of Lords

My Lords, we were reminded earlier today that this clause takes its origins from a political posture. As has been shown in devastating terms this afternoon, it is a mess. To carry it forward into legislation would be to take a posture to an extent that would be both disproportionate...

Member
Lord Mayhew of Twysden (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
23 April 2008
Reference
700 c1527
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I shall add a small peripheral point, picking up on the remarks of my noble friend Lord Neill. Service law comes into the discussion on this Bill on a number of occasions, so I was extremely relieved to hear his definition of self-defence. Defending yourself or property, or...

Member
Lord Ramsbotham (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
23 April 2008
Reference
700 c1527
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response and to all those who have contributed to the debate. I take up one point that the Minister made about the relationship between disproportionality and the Human Rights Act. The Minister suggests that my amendment would not conform with...

Member
Lord Kingsland (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
23 April 2008
Reference
700 c1522-3
House
House of Lords

My Lords, that indicates that areas of clarification may be required in our law. The clause seeks to reflect the language more in Palmer—the language of Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest—and it was immediately identified that certain passages from Palmer were reflected in the provision. I hope that is a sufficient...

Member
Lord Davidson of Glen Clova (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
23 April 2008
Reference
700 c1522
House
House of Lords

My Lords, the noble Lord opposite said that the purpose of the clause is to explain common law and send a message. If he seriously thinks that the general public can read, learn and inwardly digest this clause, he is very much mistaken. It is not to be read by...

Member
Earl of Onslow (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
23 April 2008
Reference
700 c1525
House
House of Lords