1-20 of 186 results for askedby:"Lord Ackner"
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.278 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.002 seconds
- Search query
- askedby:"Lord Ackner"
- We searched for
- tablingMember_ses:298755 OR askingMember_ses:298755
Type
House
Session
Year
Department
Member
Primary member
Answering member
Legislative stage
Legislation
Subject
More
Publisher
My Lords, no one has made reference to the fact that the provision of a civil litigation system is in the public interest, as it provides a civilised way of effectively dealing with disputes. It goes beyond the ordinary question of what the litigant gains; the public make a substantial gain. Accordingly, there should be a contribution from general taxation, and costs should not be left solely to the litigant to cover, particularly as some of the cases are decided for the general benefit and good of society.
My Lords, no one has made reference to the fact that the provision of a civil litigation system is in the public interest, as it provides a civilised way of effectively dealing with disputes. It goes beyond the ordinary question of what the litigant gains; the public make a substantial gain. Accordingly, there should be a contribution from general taxation, and costs should not be left solely to the litigant to cover, particularly as some of the cases are decided for the general benefit and good of society.
Asked by
Lord Ackner
(Crossbench)
Oral questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
15 February 2006
My Lords, as I indicated in my earlier response, the taxpayer makes a significant contribution. In 2004–05, the taxpayer paid 23 per cent of the cost; I agree in that respect with the noble and learned Lord. I also agree that it is important that we make sure that people have access to justice. Hence, as I indicated, I am looking at exemptions and remissions to ensure that we have got that right for those who need that additional support.
Subjects
Civil proceedings; Fees and charges; Civil Justice Council
Date
15 February 2006
Reference
678 c1144-5
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, it is common ground that the Civil Justice Council is there as a watchdog over the civil courts and that in the past the former Chief Justice and the Chief Justice before him have combined with the council and the Council of Judges to condemn the policy that has just been mentioned.
I should make it clear that this is not a frontal attack on the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, Dieu soit merci; it is a frontal attack on that most powerful member of the executive, the Revenue. The Revenue has decreed that full costs incurred in the civil courts should be recovered. It is what has been colloquially known as the cream of the office cat. Would your Lordships not agree that it is totally wrong and has been condemned on the basis that it interferes with that vital concept of access to justice? Will the noble Baroness say how she can fit the two in together?
My Lords, it is common ground that the Civil Justice Council is there as a watchdog over the civil courts and that in the past the former Chief Justice and the Chief Justice before him have combined with the council and the Council of Judges to condemn the policy that has just been mentioned.
I should make it clear that this is not a frontal attack on the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, Dieu soit merci; it is a frontal attack on that most powerful member of the executive, the Revenue. The Revenue has decreed that full costs incurred in the civil courts should be recovered. It is what has been colloquially known as the cream of the office cat. Would your Lordships not agree that it is totally wrong and has been condemned on the basis that it interferes with that vital concept of access to justice? Will the noble Baroness say how she can fit the two in together?
Asked by
Lord Ackner
(Crossbench)
Oral questions - 1st Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
15 February 2006
My Lords, I pay tribute to the work of the Civil Justice Council, with which I have had the pleasure of working closely. I say to the noble and learned Lord that the concept of full cost recovery in one sense misleads us because the taxpayer makes a significant contribution—in 2004–05, nearly £104 million or about 23 per cent of the total costs involved. I repeat what I said at the beginning: we believe that the policy that we are pursuing is appropriate and correct and that it ensures, alongside the issues of remission, that those who need access to justice get it.
Subjects
Access; Civil proceedings; Fees and charges; Civil Justice Council
Date
15 February 2006
Reference
678 c1143-4
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
Whether they will accept the recommendation of the Civil Justice Council in its response of 17 November 2005 to the Department for Constitutional Affairs for a fundamental review of the policy to charge litigants in the civil courts the total costs of running those courts less fee exemptions and remissions.
Whether they will accept the recommendation of the Civil Justice Council in its response of 17 November 2005 to the Department for Constitutional Affairs for a fundamental review of the policy to charge litigants in the civil courts the total costs of running those courts less fee exemptions and remissions.
Asked by
Lord Ackner
(Crossbench)
Answered by
Baroness Ashton of Upholland
(Labour)
Oral questions - Lead
Status
Answered
For answer on
15 February 2006
Answered on
15 February 2006
My Lords, our policy remains that court fees should be set to reflect the cost of the service provided. It is right that, where they can afford to do so, litigants using the civil courts, rather than the taxpayer, should meet the cost. I am conducting a review of exemptions and remissions to ensure consistent operation and adequate protection for access to justice.
Subjects
Civil proceedings; Fees and charges; Civil Justice Council
Date
15 February 2006
Reference
678 c1143
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, I ask the Question with a little more than that thin veneer of confidence which characterises the few that I put before your Lordships. I do so because my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor gave an undertaking to the Western Circuit in July 2004 that, while he was Lord Chancellor, Hampshire would remain part of the Western Circuit. I ask whether he is prepared to abide by that assurance and whether the Government, mutatis mutandis, will do likewise.
My Lords, I ask the Question with a little more than that thin veneer of confidence which characterises the few that I put before your Lordships. I do so because my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor gave an undertaking to the Western Circuit in July 2004 that, while he was Lord Chancellor, Hampshire would remain part of the Western Circuit. I ask whether he is prepared to abide by that assurance and whether the Government, mutatis mutandis, will do likewise.
Asked by
Lord Ackner
(Crossbench)
Oral questions - 1st Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
24 January 2006
My Lords, the noble and learned Lord will know that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor always delivers on his promises where he is so able. The Hampshire force and authority submitted a case in December 2005 to stand alone as a single strategic force, and that is being considered. I assure the noble and learned Lord that every consideration will be given to his comments—and even greater consideration to those of my noble and learned friend.
Subjects
Criminal proceedings; Police; Reorganisation; Hampshire
Date
24 January 2006
Reference
677 c1057
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
What are the likely consequences to the Western Circuit, and in particular to the county of Hampshire, of their proposals to merge police authorities, and in particular any merger of the Hampshire police force with a police force other than Dorset or Wiltshire.
What are the likely consequences to the Western Circuit, and in particular to the county of Hampshire, of their proposals to merge police authorities, and in particular any merger of the Hampshire police force with a police force other than Dorset or Wiltshire.
Asked by
Lord Ackner
(Crossbench)
Answered by
Baroness Scotland of Asthal
(Labour)
Oral questions - Lead
Status
Answered
For answer on
24 January 2006
Answered on
24 January 2006
My Lords, we are working closely with our criminal justice partners and are in the middle of the consultation process for police force restructuring. It would therefore be premature to comment on options put forward by any police force or authority as no decisions have yet been made on the viability of certain options. The restructuring debate is centred on the need for a police service that is capable of meeting the demands of serious and organised crime as well as providing effective neighbourhood policing and maintaining present strong links with the criminal justice system.
Subjects
Criminal proceedings; Police; Reorganisation; Hampshire
Date
24 January 2006
Reference
677 c1057
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, why have we dropped the use of the word ““effect”” and seized upon this odd word ““impact””?
My Lords, why have we dropped the use of the word ““effect”” and seized upon this odd word ““impact””?
Asked by
Lord Ackner
(Crossbench)
Oral questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
19 January 2006
My Lords, this is a government who like to have impact.
Legislation
Draft Mental Health Bill (2004)
Subjects
Impact assessments
Date
19 January 2006
Reference
677 c765
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, have the Government made any estimate of the effect of the embargo on non-serious operations on the NHS deficit? If the deficit is not cleared off, will it be carried forward into the next fiscal year?
My Lords, have the Government made any estimate of the effect of the embargo on non-serious operations on the NHS deficit? If the deficit is not cleared off, will it be carried forward into the next fiscal year?
Asked by
Lord Ackner
(Crossbench)
Oral questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
14 December 2005
My Lords, all deficits are carried forward into the next financial year. That is a long-standing practice. Not to do so would mean that people could go on spending other people’s money without any consequences. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State made clear the position on deferred operations, but she did so in the context that all hospitals will achieve a maximum waiting time of six months by the end of this year, compared with the 18 months’ waiting time when this Government came to office.
Subjects
Debts; NHS; NHS trusts
Date
14 December 2005
Reference
676 c1256
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, is the answer to the question simply "No"? The European Court of Justice has not issued a judgment agreeing that the European Commission has the power to require. All it has done is to issue a judgment which enables it to make a proposal, which is quite different.
My Lords, is the answer to the question simply "No"? The European Court of Justice has not issued a judgment agreeing that the European Commission has the power to require. All it has done is to issue a judgment which enables it to make a proposal, which is quite different.
Asked by
Lord Ackner
(Crossbench)
Oral questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
12 December 2005
My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his clarity. I was striving for it, but he has achieved it.
Subjects
Criminal law; EU countries; EU law; Judgements; Powers; Punishment; Prosecutions; European Commission; European Court of Justice
Date
12 December 2005
Reference
676 c967-8
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, would your Lordships allow me to agree with the Minister? There is no need for any further clarification. This was a case where alcohol had been consumed and it is common knowledge that alcohol can dull the inhibitions. As a result, consent can be given which otherwise would not occur. A good example of a non-sexual kind occurred in Cambridge where an undergraduate of Magdalene dived off Magdalene Bridge without first satisfying himself that there was water running under it. I would respectfully suggest that the same occurs in this type of case—the inhibitions, which have been reduced, still enable the complainant to consent and in those circumstances the prosecution cannot prove its case.
My Lords, would your Lordships allow me to agree with the Minister? There is no need for any further clarification. This was a case where alcohol had been consumed and it is common knowledge that alcohol can dull the inhibitions. As a result, consent can be given which otherwise would not occur. A good example of a non-sexual kind occurred in Cambridge where an undergraduate of Magdalene dived off Magdalene Bridge without first satisfying himself that there was water running under it. I would respectfully suggest that the same occurs in this type of case—the inhibitions, which have been reduced, still enable the complainant to consent and in those circumstances the prosecution cannot prove its case.
Asked by
Lord Ackner
(Crossbench)
Oral questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
6 December 2005
My Lords, I am grateful to have the noble and learned Lord’s assent to anything that I say from this Dispatch Box. As he has indicated, the important issue is whether consent was given. If the person, for whatever reason, lacked the capacity to give consent, that would be for the jury to determine.
Legislation
Sexual Offences Act 2003
Subjects
Rape
Date
6 December 2005
Reference
676 c513-4
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, from what I have understood of the press notices, there is no longer any resistance on the part of the junior Bar to accepting briefs. A number of them refused to accept briefs in order that the public should realise, first, that their remuneration had not moved for eight years, and as a result was 30 per cent below what it should have been; secondly, that a review was promised in May but never took place; and, thirdly, that there were unilateral cuts. Having made their points, and, I think, obtained a fair amount of sympathy, they have now returned to accepting work, awaiting the Carter report. Is the noble and learned Lord aware of all those facts?
My Lords, from what I have understood of the press notices, there is no longer any resistance on the part of the junior Bar to accepting briefs. A number of them refused to accept briefs in order that the public should realise, first, that their remuneration had not moved for eight years, and as a result was 30 per cent below what it should have been; secondly, that a review was promised in May but never took place; and, thirdly, that there were unilateral cuts. Having made their points, and, I think, obtained a fair amount of sympathy, they have now returned to accepting work, awaiting the Carter report. Is the noble and learned Lord aware of all those facts?
Asked by
Lord Ackner
(Crossbench)
Oral questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
16 November 2005
My Lords, in parts of the country certain members of the Bar refused to take work for a period of about two weeks. That has now ceased. I do not know what their motivation was. It is worth pointing out that junior barristers are paid on average £650 for a one-day trial and £1,300 for a three-day trial. People can judge for themselves whether those are reasonable rates.
Subjects
Criminal proceedings; Barristers; Legal aid scheme; Income; Solicitors
Date
16 November 2005
Reference
675 c1064-5
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, perhaps I may squeak in my third question. Why has Parliament been given no opportunity to debate this matter?
My Lords, perhaps I may squeak in my third question. Why has Parliament been given no opportunity to debate this matter?
Asked by
Lord Ackner
(Crossbench)
Oral questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
14 November 2005
My Lords, there is currently consultation in relation to whether, and if so by how much, the fees should be raised. It is only after that consultation that the question of parliamentary scrutiny would arise.
Subjects
Courts; Civil proceedings; Fees and charges; Recovery of costs
Date
14 November 2005
Reference
675 c827
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, I have three questions for my noble and learned friend. They grow progressively shorter—the last one is very short indeed. First, does the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor recall that the former Lord Chief Justice and the current Lord Chief Justice, both acting on behalf of the Civil Justice Council and the civil justice review, raised strong objections to the civil courts making that recovery on two grounds: first, there was a failure to recognise the collective benefit in the administration of civil justice and, secondly, it seriously weakened access to justice.
Secondly, does the Minister recall the decision of the Divisional Court in 1998—Queen’s Bench 575, Queen v. Lord Chancellor, Ex parte Witham—in which, in a very full reserved judgment, Mr Justice Laws said:"““Access to the courts is a constitutional right; it can only be denied by the government if it persuades Parliament to pass legislation which specifically—in effect by express provision—permits the executive to turn people away from the court door””."
My final question—
My Lords, I have three questions for my noble and learned friend. They grow progressively shorter—the last one is very short indeed. First, does the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor recall that the former Lord Chief Justice and the current Lord Chief Justice, both acting on behalf of the Civil Justice Council and the civil justice review, raised strong objections to the civil courts making that recovery on two grounds: first, there was a failure to recognise the collective benefit in the administration of civil justice and, secondly, it seriously weakened access to justice.
Secondly, does the Minister recall the decision of the Divisional Court in 1998—Queen’s Bench 575, Queen v. Lord Chancellor, Ex parte Witham—in which, in a very full reserved judgment, Mr Justice Laws said:"““Access to the courts is a constitutional right; it can only be denied by the government if it persuades Parliament to pass legislation which specifically—in effect by express provision—permits the executive to turn people away from the court door””."
My final question—
Asked by
Lord Ackner
(Crossbench)
Oral questions - 1st Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
14 November 2005
My Lords, on the first question, whether I recall what the Lord Chief Justice and the former Lord Chief Justice said: yes, I do. The issue that has to be addressed is a balance between charging those who use the civil courts reasonable fees and ensuring that those who cannot afford them are not denied access to justice. We seek to do that by having reasonable levels of fees and, at the same time, providing subsidy for people who would otherwise not be able to come to court. We are consulting on increases in court fees and those very issues will be considered in the course of the consultation. Secondly, do I recall the case in 1998? Yes, I do.
Subjects
Access; Courts; Civil proceedings; Fees and charges; Recovery of costs
Date
14 November 2005
Reference
675 c826
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
Whether, since 1992, they have sought the approval of Parliament for their decision to recover from litigants in civil cases the full costs of the proceedings, including, inter alia, the provision of judges’ salaries and pensions and court buildings; and, if so, when and how.
Whether, since 1992, they have sought the approval of Parliament for their decision to recover from litigants in civil cases the full costs of the proceedings, including, inter alia, the provision of judges’ salaries and pensions and court buildings; and, if so, when and how.
Asked by
Lord Ackner
(Crossbench)
Answered by
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
(Labour)
Oral questions - Lead
Status
Answered
For answer on
14 November 2005
Answered on
14 November 2005
My Lords, it has been the policy of successive governments, at least since the 1920s, that the costs of court administration in civil cases should be defrayed by litigants’ fees. Over time, the range of costs taken into account when setting fees has varied. In 1992, the government of the day decided that, in line with general government fee-charging policy, court fees in civil cases should be set to reflect the full cost of providing the service, with the exception of those areas where there is some subsidy. That meant including, for the first time, the salaries of the full-time senior judiciary—circuit judges and above—paid direct from the Consolidated Fund. That decision was not subject to consultation.
Subjects
Courts; Civil proceedings; Fees and charges; Recovery of costs
Date
14 November 2005
Reference
675 c825-6
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
Further to the Answer by the Lord Falconer of Thoroton on 20 October (Official Report, col. 878), who made the decision to recover from civil litigants the costs of court administration in 1992; after what, if any, consultation; and what documents were relied upon in making that decision.
Further to the Answer by the Lord Falconer of Thoroton on 20 October (Official Report, col. 878), who made the decision to recover from civil litigants the costs of court administration in 1992; after what, if any, consultation; and what documents were relied upon in making that decision.
Asked by
Lord Ackner
(Crossbench)
Answered by
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
(Labour)
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Answered on
9 November 2005
It has been the policy of successive governments, at least since the 1920s, that the costs of court administration should be defrayed by litigants’ fees.Over time, the range of costs taken into account when setting fees has varied. In 1992, the government of the day decided that—in line with general government fee-charging policy—court fees should be set to reflect the full cost of providing the service. This meant including for the first time the salaries of the full-time, senior judiciary (circuit judges and above) paid directly from the Consolidated Fund.The cost of district judges (formerly registrars) and fees paid to part-time deputy judges has long been met from court fees.This decision was not subject to consultation.
Subjects
Courts; Civil proceedings; Fees and charges; Recovery of costs
Date
9 November 2005
Reference
1883; 675 c78WA
House
House of Lords
My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware of the following facts? First, in 2004, he wrote to the judges promising that the value of judges’ pension benefits would not be adversely affected by the new pensions regime established by the Finance Act 2002. Secondly, a judicial pensions Bill was announced in the Queen’s Speech. Thirdly, the Judges’ Council has worked with DCA officials to consider the draft Bill and that Bill in its present form has been accepted by the Judges’ Council as a fair solution to the problem of preserving the position of judges in post on and after 6 April 2006. Finally, that Bill has not been presented to Parliament and the Government will not say when, if ever, it will be presented. Does the noble and learned Lord accept that unless the Bill becomes law prior to 6 April 2006 a significant number of judges who remain in post after that date will suffer a reduction in their total pension package on retirement, which would sour relations between the Government and the judiciary?
My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware of the following facts? First, in 2004, he wrote to the judges promising that the value of judges’ pension benefits would not be adversely affected by the new pensions regime established by the Finance Act 2002. Secondly, a judicial pensions Bill was announced in the Queen’s Speech. Thirdly, the Judges’ Council has worked with DCA officials to consider the draft Bill and that Bill in its present form has been accepted by the Judges’ Council as a fair solution to the problem of preserving the position of judges in post on and after 6 April 2006. Finally, that Bill has not been presented to Parliament and the Government will not say when, if ever, it will be presented. Does the noble and learned Lord accept that unless the Bill becomes law prior to 6 April 2006 a significant number of judges who remain in post after that date will suffer a reduction in their total pension package on retirement, which would sour relations between the Government and the judiciary?
Asked by
Lord Ackner
(Crossbench)
Oral questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
20 October 2005
My Lords, I am aware of all of those facts, but I do not accept the last proposition. May I say that the noble and learned Lord was a brilliant judge, but he was wasted as a judge? I am quite unable to understand why he did not join the Transport and General Workers’ Union as a full-time official, putting its members’ point of view with the eloquence and force that he has just shown.
Subjects
Central government; Judiciary
Date
20 October 2005
Reference
674 c883
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord assist the House on two matters? He is no doubt aware that the Civil Justice Council is the watchdog body over the civil courts, and that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, presided over that body, certainly until he became Lord Chief Justice. The Civil Justice Council, in a paper to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, said that,"““a substantial portion of the costs should be defrayed from general taxation””."
It added that the,"““general level of fees discourages access to the courts””,"
particularly on the part of litigants who are employees on their own part or are in a small business.
In view of the civil disputes affected—for example, in the case of a parent who wants to seek access to a child, the fee has risen from £30 to £175, as noble Lords have heard—does the noble and learned Lord not accept that that is an intolerable situation when we are trying to emphasise the need to give full access to the courts?
My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord assist the House on two matters? He is no doubt aware that the Civil Justice Council is the watchdog body over the civil courts, and that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, presided over that body, certainly until he became Lord Chief Justice. The Civil Justice Council, in a paper to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, said that,"““a substantial portion of the costs should be defrayed from general taxation””."
It added that the,"““general level of fees discourages access to the courts””,"
particularly on the part of litigants who are employees on their own part or are in a small business.
In view of the civil disputes affected—for example, in the case of a parent who wants to seek access to a child, the fee has risen from £30 to £175, as noble Lords have heard—does the noble and learned Lord not accept that that is an intolerable situation when we are trying to emphasise the need to give full access to the courts?
Asked by
Lord Ackner
(Crossbench)
Oral questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
20 October 2005
My Lords, I was aware of the report of the Civil Justice Council, which we will bear in mind when considering the results of the consultation on the increase of the fees. The example given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, relates to the cost of a contact application, which is being increased in a magistrates’ court. The fees for a contact application in county courts and the High Court are already high, and, on the evidence, they have not put people off applying. We must raise money from those who use the courts, but we must be sure that those who cannot afford it are not deterred by those fees. That is what we are consulting on.
Subjects
Civil proceedings; Fees and charges; Increases
Date
20 October 2005
Reference
674 c877-8
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, does the Minister recall the recent publicity concerning a doctor, who, lacking in specialist qualifications, nevertheless over a long period wrongly diagnosed and wrongly treated children for epilepsy, with disastrous results? What has happened to that doctor?
My Lords, does the Minister recall the recent publicity concerning a doctor, who, lacking in specialist qualifications, nevertheless over a long period wrongly diagnosed and wrongly treated children for epilepsy, with disastrous results? What has happened to that doctor?
Asked by
Lord Ackner
(Crossbench)
Oral questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
5 July 2005
My Lords, I am aware of this case and although I am not at liberty to go into the details of it, I will write to the noble and learned Lord.
Subjects
Disciplinary proceedings; Administrative delays; Doctors; NHS
Date
5 July 2005
Reference
673 c533
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
Supplementary on commmunity sentences and minimum sentences.
Supplementary on commmunity sentences and minimum sentences.
Asked by
Lord Ackner
(Crossbench)
Oral questions - 1st Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
1 March 2005
Date
1 March 2005
Reference
670 c109
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
1st supplementary on the consequences of exceeding the use of reasonable force and the availability of manslaughter as an intermediate offence.
1st supplementary on the consequences of exceeding the use of reasonable force and the availability of manslaughter as an intermediate offence.
Asked by
Lord Ackner
(Crossbench)
Oral questions - 1st Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
9 February 2005
Subjects
Criminal law; Burglary; Criminal liability; Homicide; Protection; Prosecutions; Property; Self-defence
Date
9 February 2005
Reference
669 c794-7
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
Whether the guidelines issued by the Crown Prosecution Service and the Association of Chief Police Officers on the use of lethal force against intruders adequately address public concern.
Whether the guidelines issued by the Crown Prosecution Service and the Association of Chief Police Officers on the use of lethal force against intruders adequately address public concern.
Asked by
Lord Ackner
(Crossbench)
Answered by
Lord Goldsmith
(Labour)
Oral questions - Lead
Status
Answered
Procedure
Topical questions (HL)
For answer on
9 February 2005
Answered on
9 February 2005
Subjects
Criminal law; Burglary; Criminal liability; Homicide; Protection; Prosecutions; Property; Self-defence
Date
9 February 2005
Reference
669 c794-7
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords