Why will it not have been known until the end of the trial? I am more and more confused. I will at this stage have to accept what the Minister has put to me, but I look forward to a letter in which she will try to reassure me with examples. I hope she will also accept that it is just possible that there could be some cases in which all that was ever intended to be encouraged was a summary offence. Therefore, an injustice might occur, should the defendant wish to be tried in a magistrates’ court, not the Crown Court. I will look very carefully at what the Minister has to say in her letter to me. It will provide me with interesting reading over the Easter break, if she can get it to me on time. We will consider whether we need to come back to this. I do not know whether it is of very great importance, but it has still further confused me with regard to the whole question of Clauses 40 and 41. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 50 agreed to.
Clauses 51 to 56 agreed to.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Clauses 57 and 58 agreed to.
Clause 59 [Indirectly encouraging or assisting]:
On Question, Whether Clause 59 shall stand part of the Bill?
Serious Crime Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Henley
(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 c1265 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 12:17:19 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_386766
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_386766
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_386766