Terrorism Bill

The hon. Lady is right: there are other examples where we have kept a test akin to recklessness, but made it objective, not subjective. That explains the recent trend of using the legal gobbledegook of ““reasonable grounds for believing”” and ““likely””—those two concepts are currently used married together. The Minister expressly consented to putting the word, ““reckless”” into legislation, but having given with one hand, she is taking away with the other, which is incoherent. In light of the decision of the House of Lords in R v. G, the drafting is also unsatisfactory. Indeed, I am almost forced to conclude that if that is really what the Minister wants to do, it would be better if the word, ““reckless”” did not feature.