The noble Lord makes a case and puts an argument with which we do not ultimately agree. The way in which cases are prepared and the fact that the CPS gives them very careful consideration before going forward ensures that these interests are properly considered. It is in everyone’s interest for cases to be properly supported by evidence. Where evidence is not sufficient to suggest the likelihood of a proper trial, fair consideration and likelihood of a conviction, I am not sure that it would be worth the cost or be in the public interest for such a case to proceed. The requirement for consent does not ultimately prevent a private prosecution, but acts as a filter, which we have seen in some cases of public concern historically. I do not think that I entirely agree with the noble Lord. The noble Lord’s point about seriousness is important. These are very serious cases, and I suspect their number will be small. It is right that we should be absolutely certain that we are taking the right course of action, so that such cases can be properly heard with a realistic prospect of a positive outcome in terms of a conviction.
Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Bassam of Brighton
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Thursday, 18 January 2007.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
688 c295GC Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand CommitteeSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 12:48:31 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_370671
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_370671
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_370671