The hon. Gentleman might be right. We will not press the issue to a vote and, as it is unlikely that we would be able to muster sufficient forces, we could not achieve a change in the law. The issue was raised in Committee and on Second Reading, and it was appropriate for us to raise it by way of an amendment tonight.
According to my speaking notes, we have the support of the official Opposition on amendment No. 112, although the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) said that it was an issue in which he was interested, rather than something for which he expressed his support. It would require a jury to establish whether there was a terrorist connection, rather than a judge. The purpose of the amendment is not to seek to undermine the principle that it is for the judge to determine the sentence. Clauses 30 to 32 deal with evidential questions, not sentencing, and that is why—
Counter-Terrorism Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
Proceeding contribution from
Tom Brake
(Liberal Democrat)
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 c229 Session
2007-08Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 01:08:12 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_483226
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_483226
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_483226