My Lords, frankly, I can think of nothing worse than withdrawing the case halfway through. We are here discussing the effectiveness and deterrent value of the law. I accept that cases will not proceed to court and that bad people will not be prosecuted in certain circumstances. That is the price we pay for ensuring that the information is available. It is a fact that terrorist outrages have been prevented during the past few years, major channels of communication have been blocked and major criminal operations have been stopped because of information gained that cannot be put into court. Those people may not have been found guilty in court, but the public have been protected as a consequence of the procedures that are already in place.
So although we pay a price and will have to pay a price in not having those people on trial and convicted, I believe that the price is acceptable for society, given the balance posed against it by the material being available. If the public think about it carefully, listen to the evidence of the consequences and are directed away from the superficial attractions of what is offered, they will come to the conclusion that we are best served by leaving well alone.
Interception of Communications (Admissibility of Evidence) Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Friday, 18 November 2005.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Interception of Communications (Admissibility of Evidence) Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
675 c1312 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-01-26 18:32:22 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_277269
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_277269
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_277269