Skip to main content

1-20 of 522 results for member:"Lord Ackner"

Type

House

Session

Year

Department

Member

Primary member

Answering member

Legislative stage

Legislation

Subject

More

Publisher


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

My Lords, perhaps I may intervene before the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, speaks. I have one or two random points to make in regard to jury trial and the present situation. First, it would be totally unrealistic if we did not recognise that there was a perception among the minorities that one obtained...

Member
Lord Ackner (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
14 March 2006
Reference
679 c1124
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I respectfully seek to support what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has said—which is in forensic terms, ““If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it””. The statute is in wholly permissive language:"““A court considering a claim in negligence may””," not ““must””. Nothing has been made mandatory in the amendment and therefore...

Member
Lord Ackner (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
7 March 2006
Reference
679 c650
House
House of Lords
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
Date
15 February 2006
Reference
678 c1144-5
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?
Asked by
Lord Ackner (Crossbench)
Oral questions - 1st Supplementary
Status
Answered
Date
15 February 2006
Reference
678 c1143-4
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.
Asked by
Lord Ackner (Crossbench)
Oral questions - Lead
Status
Answered
Date
15 February 2006
Reference
678 c1143
House
House of Lords

moved Amendment No. 1:"Page 2, line 31, at beginning insert ““if the individual so chooses,””" The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I do not claim paternity of this short, simple and important amendment; I concede that honour to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton. The limited function to which I am entitled to limited...

Member
Lord Ackner (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
6 February 2006
Reference
678 c425-7
House
House of Lords

My Lords, until the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, intervened, I thought he was a friend of mine. If he were really interested in how I obtained my sobriquet, he would have asked me that in private. I never have any secrets from the House. There is a certain sweetness about this which...

Member
Lord Ackner (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
6 February 2006
Reference
678 c432-3
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I strongly support the principle, which has just been elegantly announced.

Member
Lord Ackner (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
30 January 2006
Reference
678 c38
House
House of Lords

My Lords, the Minister accepted that this might relate to perception. Is it not the Government’s view that that can be vital—hence the decision to move the entirety of the Lords of Appeal out of this House?

Member
Lord Ackner (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
30 January 2006
Reference
678 c39
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.
Asked by
Lord Ackner (Crossbench)
Oral questions - 1st Supplementary
Status
Answered
Date
24 January 2006
Reference
677 c1057
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.
Asked by
Lord Ackner (Crossbench)
Oral questions - Lead
Status
Answered
Date
24 January 2006
Reference
677 c1057
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Baroness, but I do not understand why the second stage should prevent one learning from experience. One of the advantages of doing it in two stages is that you have the opportunity to learn from experience. Yet what the noble Baroness is proposing is...

Member
Lord Ackner (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
23 January 2006
Reference
677 c989
House
House of Lords
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
Date
19 January 2006
Reference
677 c765
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I agree that subsection (3) must clearly go, for the reasons which have been fully explained. However, I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, that this is no matter of principle but one of drafting. I would strongly support his proposals in Amendment No. 9, as...

Member
Lord Ackner (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
17 January 2006
Reference
677 c580
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?
Asked by
Lord Ackner (Crossbench)
Oral questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Date
14 December 2005
Reference
676 c1256
House
House of Lords

My Lords—

Member
Lord Ackner (Crossbench)
Type
Oral question time interventions
Date
12 December 2005
Reference
676 c967
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.
Asked by
Lord Ackner (Crossbench)
Oral questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Date
12 December 2005
Reference
676 c967-8
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.
Asked by
Lord Ackner (Crossbench)
Oral questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Date
6 December 2005
Reference
676 c513-4
House
House of Lords

I support what has just been said. Unless there is a suggestion that the burden could be treated as evidential, a sizeable burden has been placed on the defence. It would be quite contrary in cases of this kind for the defence to shoulder entirely new burdens. The evidential approach gets...

Member
Lord Ackner (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
5 December 2005
Reference
676 c432
House
House of Lords

I still have not understood the position. Perhaps I may give a well known example. One of my brother judges, Lord Justice Purchas, was always known as Bob Purchas, although his proper name was Francis Purchas. He is no longer with us so there is a certain academic influence in my question,...

Member
Lord Ackner (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
23 November 2005
Reference
675 c1638
House
House of Lords