I have listened with great interest to what the hon. Gentleman has said, and his speech could—with some reservations—have been made just as easily by the Solicitor-General. That is one of the reasons why I wish to ask him this question. I will not support his new clause, although it is not so bad that I will support the Government, because if he takes the view—as I do—that in serious cases with serious implications it is never in the interests of justice in our adversarial system for them to be tried without a jury, how can it be right to table a new clause that by implication, as he has been arguing, suggests that on occasion it can be in the interests of justice for such cases to be heard without a jury?
1 pm
Fraud (Trials without a Jury) Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Robert Marshall-Andrews
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Thursday, 25 January 2007.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Fraud (Trials without a Jury) Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
455 c1580-1 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberLibrarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 11:29:21 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_373144
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_373144
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_373144