My Lords, there is a serious risk of agreement breaking out. I will make one point, if I may, as the only Scottish lawyer, I think, in the Committee. It is important to remember that the verdict of not proven occurs after trial and trial takes place only if there is a reasonable prospect of conviction and, of course, it is in the public interest. So the standard is slightly different but that does not in any way undermine my support for what the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, said. There is absolutely no doubt that inferences can be drawn from “insufficient evidence”. Indeed, the way in which the language is sometimes placed in a paragraph or a sentence goes a long way to suggesting that that may have been the conclusion of the prosecuting authorities but the police may feel rather differently. From that point of view, it seems to me that “lack of evidence” provides a pithy and succinct way of dealing with an issue that is all too common, particularly in relation to public figures.
Policing and Crime Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 2 November 2016.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Policing and Crime Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
776 c666 Session
2016-17Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberLibrarians' tools
Timestamp
2018-01-11 16:34:00 +0000
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2016-11-02/16110241000157
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2016-11-02/16110241000157
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2016-11-02/16110241000157