My Lords, it is some time since I was officially concerned with the business of interception. Then, from time to time we reviewed whether we should seek the ability to use intercept material as evidence in criminal trials. I can well understand the potential attractions of being able to use such evidence in those trials. I recognise that, in proposing that this should be allowed, my noble and learned friend has included a number of safeguards in the amendment, but I do not know whether those safeguards are 100 per cent proof. Unless things have changed very greatly, I believe that the conclusion that we reached when I was in the business should be unchanged. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Park, that the risks and disadvantages of allowing the use of intercept material in criminal proceedings greatly outweigh the potential benefits. It is with regret that I am unable to support my noble and learned friend Lord Lloyd, but I cannot and I hope that the House will not support the amendment.
Serious Crime Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Armstrong of Ilminster
(Crossbench)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 25 April 2007.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Serious Crime Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
691 c691 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 11:36:32 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_392283
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_392283
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_392283