Proceeding contribution from Andrew Dismore (Labour) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 12 November 2009. It occurred during Debate on bill on Coroners and Justice Bill.
Coroners and Justice Bill
Well, that is my concern, because I am not entirely convinced that the wording under the Lords amendment would achieve that. We would end up in limbo: on the one hand, the Lord Chancellor would say, "Secret inquiry"; on the other hand, the Lord Chief Justice would say, "You can't have a judge." We would end up exactly where we are with the Azelle Rodney caseāfour years on and no inquiry into it. My right hon. Friend knows that when we last debated the issue, he won the Division by eight votes. It was probably closer than he thinks, however, because several people said to me afterwards, "We went into the wrong Lobby by mistake." That demonstrates the strength of feeling on the Labour Benches. There is nothing to be lost in accepting the Opposition's formulation, because it would strengthen the wording and achieve, beyond peradventure, what my right hon. Friend says he wants to achieve through the Lords amendment.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 499 c382
- Session
- 2008-09
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Admissibility of evidence Coroners Juries Evidence
- Legislation
- Coroners and Justice Bill 2008-09
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 13:52:20 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_594776
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_594776
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_594776