Is not my hon. Friend’s point reinforced, and our concerns about the Government’s motivation and the risk of a wedge made even greater, by the fact that in the preface to the report the Attorney-General attempted to fly wholly in the face of the evidence Mr. Wooler had collected? The Attorney-General attempted to whitewash his position by suggesting that the evidence did not justify Mr. Wooler’s view that the jury was capable of carrying on with the trial, whereas in fact the detailed evidence and the best research on the attitudes of juries demonstrates clearly that my hon. Friend’s position is right. Why did the Attorney-General feel constrained to make such a wildly inaccurate comment—on the face of it—in the preface to the report?
Fraud (Trials without a Jury) Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Robert Neill
(Conservative)
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 c1588-9 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberLibrarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 11:29:22 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_373166
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_373166
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_373166