I add my thanks to the Minister for his explanation of the order. When Clause 56 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill was going through the House we made no objection to it and we were very pleased that the Bar Council and the Law Society were supportive of the consultation. This was for two reasons: the first is that the instrument also makes provision for circumstances in which provisional representation orders may or must be withdrawn; and the second reason, which is quite attractive, is that the Attorney-General’s guidelines on plea discussions in cases of serious or complex fraud will encourage discussions about guilty pleas in fraud cases to happen much earlier and more transparently. That will avoid costly and lengthy fraud trials, which will be beneficial to the criminal justice process.
As this scheme is being set up as a pilot, it would be very helpful if the Minister could indicate how long he expects the pilot to run. When it has finished, will the Government publish the results and come back to the House to update us on how it has worked?
Criminal Defence Service (Provisional Representation Orders) Regulations 2009
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Dholakia
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 29 June 2009.
It occurred during Debates on delegated legislation on Criminal Defence Service (Provisional Representation Orders) Regulations 2009.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
712 c29-30GC Session
2008-09Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand CommitteeLibrarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 02:11:43 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_571292
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_571292
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_571292