Skip to main content

1-20 of 326 results for dept:"Solicitor General"

Subject X
Juries

Type

House

Session

Year

Department

Member

More

Primary member

Answering member

Legislative stage

Legislation

Subject

More
Juries (326)

Publisher


Show detailed: On Off
Results: 10 20 50 100
Sort by: Newest first Oldest first

I welcome the fraud review. I hope very much that issues such as plea bargaining and better management of fraud trials can all be looked at very carefully in the course of it. However, in view of the fact that the review is taking place and that it is likely that by next week the Bill that would remove the right to trial by jury in certain fraud cases will be defeated in the House of Lords, can I urge the Solicitor-General to use the fraud review to reconsider the position of wanting to get rid of the right of trial by jury in certain fraud cases? If this fraud review is properly carried out, it will make such a measure even less necessary despite the Government’s attempts at justifying it.
Asked by
Dominic Grieve (Conservative)
Answering body
Solicitor General
Oral questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Date
15 March 2007
Reference
458 c436-7
House
House of Commons

I shall begin by referring to some remarks made by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). Like me, he was present in the Standing Committee meeting on 14 November 2005 when we discussed the same issue with the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), who was then...

Member
Lord Garnier (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
29 November 2006
Reference
453 c1165-8
House
House of Commons

If I have understood the hon. and learned Gentleman correctly, he is saying that the issue is one of case management, so the only difference between what he is saying and what I am saying is that we approach the solution to case management differently.

Member
Stephen Hesford (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
29 November 2006
Reference
453 c1168
House
House of Commons

I am hesitant to reach any accommodation with the hon. Gentleman because I found what he said almost impenetrable. I am not at all sure that the House will want to reflect too long on the remarks he made in his speech. I had intended to do him the service...

Member
Lord Garnier (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
29 November 2006
Reference
453 c1168
House
House of Commons

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Member
Stephen Hesford (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
29 November 2006
Reference
453 c1168
House
House of Commons

No, I will not. The hon. Gentleman has given us the benefit of his views and we are able to judge them. I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Medway in this. He said that the Bill constituted a serious attack on our civil liberties and that it...

Member
Lord Garnier (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
29 November 2006
Reference
453 c1168-70
House
House of Commons

I am grateful to all hon. Members who have taken part in the debate. My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General opened the debate, saying that fraud does enormous damage to our national economy and that the Government are determined to modernise our criminal justice system to tackle it. That...

Member
Joan Ryan (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
29 November 2006
Reference
453 c1170-1
House
House of Commons

The hon. Lady has been relying on Lord Roskill and Lord Justice Auld, but perhaps she should remind the House that the Bill goes far beyond what they recommended. Both of them recommended that there should be a panel to sit with the single judge, unless the defendant chose otherwise.

Member
Viscount Hailsham (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
29 November 2006
Reference
453 c1171
House
House of Commons

My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General set out in his speech what they recommended. They both recommended that we should dispense with jury trial in these cases.

Member
Joan Ryan (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
29 November 2006
Reference
453 c1171
House
House of Commons

The hon. and learned Gentleman is correct. I turn to several of the comments made by hon. Members during the debate. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) made a number of serious and important points and I have no doubt that they will be returned to in Committee. However,...

Member
Joan Ryan (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
29 November 2006
Reference
453 c1172
House
House of Commons

I would not like the Minister unwittingly to mislead herself, let alone anybody else. The jurisdiction of the magistrates courts to pass sentences of one year is not yet in force. It is one of the many aspects of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 that the Government have yet to...

Member
Lord Garnier (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
29 November 2006
Reference
453 c1171
House
House of Commons

The Solicitor-General is absolutely right that he was quoting someone else when he used the phrase. However, I did not attribute the phrase to him, but simply said that he had used the phrase. I think that the record will show that. The record will also show that underlying his...

Member
Bob Spink (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
29 November 2006
Reference
453 c1153-4
House
House of Commons

I refer to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Interests. It is a privilege to be called to speak in opposition to this odious Bill and to follow so many fine speakers, every word of whose speeches I agree with, except for one remark. That was the comment by...

Member
David Jones (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
29 November 2006
Reference
453 c1154
House
House of Commons

It does indeed. My right hon. and learned Friend is quite right. I have no doubt that the adherence to liberty is also reflected among Irish Members, although unfortunately I cannot see any present in the Chamber today. For more than 800 years the right to a trial by jury...

Member
David Jones (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
29 November 2006
Reference
453 c1154-6
House
House of Commons

I listened carefully to the reasons given by the Solicitor-General and his hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford) for introducing the Bill again. The issue is not the lack of jury capability, neither is it the length of cases brought before court; otherwise, the Bill would include...

Member
Andrew Pelling (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
29 November 2006
Reference
453 c1156-7
House
House of Commons

No. This may be a technical point, but it is an important aspect of the law. The Solicitor-General raises some important, pragmatic considerations. Every week, prosecuting authorities, such as the SFO and the Crown Prosecution Service, and the counsel they appoint and brief, have to take important decisions about such...

Member
Lord Davies of Stamford (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
29 November 2006
Reference
453 c1147-8
House
House of Commons

I agree. One should not try to anticipate precisely how long a trial will be before it starts. That would be contrary to the interests of justice. One might genuinely think that the matter could be resolved in a week or two, but issues might arise, or the defence might...

Member
Lord Davies of Stamford (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
29 November 2006
Reference
453 c1148-50
House
House of Commons

If, as the Solicitor-General suggests, the Government’s only concern is to relieve juries of participation in lengthy trials, does my hon. Friend agree that there seems no reason to raise the question of complexity as a consideration for the judge? The only consideration should be the length of the trial;...

Member
David Jones (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
29 November 2006
Reference
453 c1148
House
House of Commons

It is important that we do not misrepresent people in the House. The hon. Gentleman is quoting selectively. When I used the words ““stupid jury””, I was quoting a Conservative Member who had used the phrase, so that I could dismiss the point. It was not worthy of the hon....

Member
Mike O'Brien (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
29 November 2006
Reference
453 c1153
House
House of Commons

I am one of the few non-legal minds contributing to the debate, so it could be said that I speak for the jury side of the equation, and for the common man, or the uninitiated. I rely simply on common sense. Trial by jury is a matter of fundamental principle...

Member
Bob Spink (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
29 November 2006
Reference
453 c1150-3
House
House of Commons