Despite the comments that the Solicitor-General has just made, I do not entirely share his confidence about dealing with either the difficulties that will be faced in respect of public interest immunity applications, or those that will be perceived in respect of judges trying issues of law and fact together in serious criminal cases.
I want to return to new clause 15. The Solicitor-General will not be surprised to learn that I shall seek leave to withdraw it. I fully accept that the new clause and the concept of an expert panel have many shortcomings, but I regret that the Government are so implacably opposed to special juries, because although they, too, have drawbacks, they would be infinitely better than the course on which the Government are embarking, which is to get rid of juries altogether in select cases. For that reason I thought it right to find any creative means of bringing the argument back to the House at a time when the procedures of the House made it extremely difficult to do so.
On the Government’s position on trial by Crown Court judges, some Crown Court judges may be found suitable for such work—I shall forbear to list those who would be wholly unsuitable.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Fraud (Trials without a Jury) Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Dominic Grieve
(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 c1637-8 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberLibrarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 11:29:37 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_373265
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_373265
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_373265