I presume that some of my hon. Friend's new clause would be redundant if Government new clauses 18 and 19 were to be added to the Bill. I understand the point that he makes about post-charge questioning on only new evidence, but I do not understand the point about evidence that"““could not reasonable””—"
I think that that is a typographical error and should read ““reasonably””—"““have come to light before.””"
What would happen if another suspect in the same case decided to provide some evidence that he had—in his mind—reasonably withheld until that point? He might be held to have done so unreasonably, in which case I presume that questioning on it would not be allowed.
Counter-Terrorism Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
Proceeding contribution from
Chris Bryant
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 10 June 2008.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Counter-Terrorism Bill (Programme) (No. 2).
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
477 c190 Session
2007-08Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 01:07:45 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_483168
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_483168
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_483168