My Lords, I am not a lawyer, but after those two interventions I am close to saying, ““I rest my case””. It appears that two deeply respected Members of our House have had a conversation with the same person and have come to different conclusions regarding what that person has said.
If this can happen on such a crucial issue, how important is it to the whole sphere that we should have a sober examination in depth of the propositions and issues before us?
Let me conclude with a few observations. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, emphasised—I thought a little defensively; I hope he was not being defensive—the importance of strengthening the effectiveness of prosecution. I agree with him on that. It is totally wrong that people who may be guilty of the most heinous offences should have any chance of going free because of the limitations on what can be considered in court.
But there is another side to the argument. We are living in the real world in terribly dangerous times, and the battle for hearts and minds is crucial. It has always been central to the acceptance and endorsement of the British system of justice that we strive to ensure that justice is not only done but is seen to be done. As soon as one moves into the realm of security, there are, of course, compromises. I am a realist and I know that compromises will always be there if you accept the importance of security. The issue is where the compromise is struck—which compromises are acceptable and which are not; what safeguards there are; what arrangements there are. Those matters need to be tested and, I suspect, periodically examined in the Select Committee, to make absolutely certain that the compromises are as good and wholesome as possible. If there is any danger that justice is unnecessarily not being seen to be done and is unduly secretive—exclusive, if you like—in the way it is administered, that will play into the hands of the cynical manipulators of the young and others whom they wish to recruit to their extremist causes. That would be an own goal of very serious dimensions.
By his proposals, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, has presented the House with a wonderful opportunity to take forward a dispassionate, measured examination of where we stand and whether where we stand is the best way to confront the issues of the future. In doing so, it would be foolish not to take into account the concerns that have been honestly and repeatedly expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Park, and my noble friend Lady Ramsay. But we must also take into account the reality of the context in which we are operating and the need to ensure that we do not inadvertently strengthen the position of the extremists.
Interception of Communications (Admissibility of Evidence) Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Judd
(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 c1320-1 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-01-26 18:32:06 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_277282
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_277282
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_277282