moved Amendment No. 6:"Page 2, line 3, leave out ““might”” and insert ““intends it to””"
The noble Lord said: It is unclear in what circumstances it could be said that a defendant knows that a representation ““might”” be untrue or misleading. In many cases, it is impossible for any person to know anything with complete certainty.
To return to the previous example, a person selling a painting may genuinely believe that the painting is an original Renoir. There may be every reason to believe that the painting is by Renoir—for instance, the painting may have been continuously owned by a family who originally purchased it from Renoir, and an expert may have examined it and confirmed it to be a Renoir. However, no matter how strong the reasons for concluding that the painting is genuine, ordinary human experience tells us that in a situation such as this there is always some possibility, however remote, that the painting is not genuine.
On the present wording of Clause 2, it would seem that the seller of the painting would make a false representation within the meaning of Clause 2 if he said, ““This is a painting by Renoir”” rather than saying, ““I honestly believe that this is a painting by Renoir””.
The amendment would change the drafting to read:"““A representation is false if—""(a) it is untrue or misleading, and""(b) the person making it knows that it is, or intends it to be, untrue or misleading””."
The Criminal Law Solicitors’ Association raised this issue in response to the Government’s consultation. It stated:"““The Criminal Law Solicitors’ Association is opposed to the additional wording of ‘which he is aware might be false or misleading’. We believe that the addition of the words ‘might’ present too nebulous a concept for inclusion within the criminal law particularly where the burden of proof is to establish a Defendant’s guilt ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. We would submit the inclusion of such a nebulous test would in our view be falling into the trap of making matters too confusing for a jury””."
I beg to move.
Fraud Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Kingsland
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 19 July 2005.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Fraud Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
673 c1421-2 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 13:25:05 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_263119
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_263119
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_263119