Serious Crime Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 101: 101: Clause 47, page 28, line 28, leave out subsection (2) The noble Baroness said: Grouped with Amendment No. 101 is Amendment No. 101A, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Dholakia and Lord Thomas of Gresford. Again, Amendment No. 101 is a probing amendment. The Explanatory Notes tell us at paragraph 148 that: "““Clause 47 sets out in statute the common law exemption from liability established in the case of Tyrell””." The lawyers will know full well—it is not part of my knowledge—that, in that case, an underage girl was charged with aiding and abetting a man to have sexual intercourse with her. She was acquitted because the court felt that the law had been designed to protect young women in similar circumstances. The Explanatory Notes highlight that, essentially, the person cannot be guilty of an offence under this section of Part 2 if, "““the person who does the act capable of encouraging or assisting that offence falls within the category of persons that offence was designed to protect and would be considered as the victim””." That appears fairly to reflect the Tyrell case. The Committee will be aware of the example given by the Explanatory Notes, so one of the first questions that I would like to ask is why the Minister did not take the opportunity to address the issue in the Sexual Offences Act 2003. One wonders whether it was simply not under consideration. We would also like to question the Liberal Democrats on their amendment. Have they considered the potential oddities that might follow from their proposal? I know that the amendment was suggested by Liberty for perfectly respectable and well argued reasons, but I have one concern. I am looking across the Liberal Democrat Benches and am not sure who is going to reply; perhaps it will be the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. When they respond, will they consider the extreme and highly publicised case prosecuted in Germany in 2003 and 2004—it started in December—of cannibalism which ended in the death of the person? However, such cases may not end in that way; serious injury might have been the result. I hesitate because I can never pronounce German names; I apologise, though not to this particular person. Armin Meiwes put the advert round the internet and his potential victim, Bernd Juergen Brandes, responded and encouraged the act of cannibalism. In such a circumstance, would it be right under the amendment that encouragement of a vile offence should mean that the person would escape any prosecution? Is it the intent of those who tabled the amendment to give an escape clause in that way? I suspect not, but it was an oddity. I beg to move.