I hear what my hon. and learned Friend says. I have recently written to him to set out in some detail some of the issues in relation to the Jubilee line case, because he has raised that matter with me on previous occasions, and I thank him for doing so. The report makes it clear that it may well not have been appropriate, in any event, for the Jubilee line case to have been a non-jury trial. To some extent, in dealing with the whole issue of the Jubilee line case, there is a certain amount of academic interest, rather than practical interest, in the sense that the trial probably would not have been suitable under section 43 of the Criminal Justice Act. None the less, the case is of academic interest, and perhaps even practical interest, for this reason: it exposes to some extent some of the issues in relation to burdens on juries and—in terms of the point of view of Opposition Members—the ability of juries to understand cases. Both those issues are exposed in ways that we might not normally get the opportunity to see, because such research is not usually carried out.
Fraud (Trials without a Jury) Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Mike O'Brien
(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 c1593-4 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberLibrarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 11:29:24 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_373191
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_373191
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_373191