I hope that nothing I said earlier was inconsistent with what I have just said. I have tried to explain that the applicant will have to prove it; the respondent will have to produce information about the reasonable excuse, as I have described. That is what I was talking about earlier; perhaps it is difficult when one takes some of these issues out of context, but that is when it happens. The assertion is made and the individual then says, ““I have a reasonable excuse””, and has to produce information on what that is. However, at the end of the day, the applicant who seeks the order will have to satisfy the court on the balance of probabilities that the elements have been satisfied to justify the order. The noble Lord will be familiar with the process, having been in courts even longer than I have.
Serious Crime Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Scotland of Asthal
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 7 March 2007.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Serious Crime Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
690 c280 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 12:07:03 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_382769
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_382769
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_382769