Before the Minister answers, and so that he does not have to go over old ground, I will intervene. In the Government’s case, the judges will have a new power that is needed because the existing defences of ex turpi and volenti are not adequate. I think that is the case the Government are making, but I respectfully submit that a judge needs a bit of help as to how he or she is to approach this case. When judges are given discretionary powers—for example, under the Limitation Act—they are given a long list of things to take into account or something that makes their job easier. I am putting myself in the position of a hypothetical judge looking at this clause, knowing that it apparently adds something to the existing common law and asking myself how I would approach this. I wonder whether there might be reflection and a judge will be given more guidance as to how he or she should approach this very difficult and delicate task.
National Security Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Faulks
(Non-affiliated)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 18 January 2023.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on National Security Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
826 c1858 Session
2022-23Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-01-19 12:21:15 +0000
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2023-01-18/23011862000025
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2023-01-18/23011862000025
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2023-01-18/23011862000025