I was careful to say that, although in that case the person died, I was proposing a case in which they did not die. I shall not describe the body part that was cut off, cooked and eaten first, but it was not that which killed the man; it was what happened afterwards. Let us say that the cannibalism happened first. The ““BBC Search”” website is very useful sometimes.
It is proper that a true victim should be protected. I appreciate that that is what the Government are trying to do through the drafting, but, as the Minister said, there will be cases in which on public interest grounds, as in the rather extreme example that I gave, a prosecution will have to go ahead. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 47 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 101A not moved.]
Clause 48 agreed to.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clause 49 [Prosecution of offences triable by reason of Schedule 4]:
Serious Crime Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 21 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 c1261 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 12:17:18 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_386756
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_386756
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_386756