Compensation Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 56:"Page 4, line 6, leave out subsection (2)." The noble Lord said: Subsection (2) provides a defence to someone who provides a claims management service, even if they are not entitled to do so under Clause 2, if they did not know that they were committing an offence and could not have been reasonably expected to know that. This is a somewhat odd provision because there is a general rule in criminal law that ignorance of law is no defence. That rule seems not only appropriate but particularly appropriate when the defendant to the prosecution has been providing a quasi-legal service. If they do not know that they are offending against the law, they certainly ought in no way to be providing that service. It is a duty of the people providing a service of that kind to know the law. Subsection (2) will lead to longer trials because it will give defendants, whether ultimately successful or not, an incentive to defend a case, because they may have an arguable case or be able to argue that they did not know the law; whereas, if the subsection was removed, they would have no alternative but to plead guilty. When ignorance is excusable, the court will recognise that fact by imposing a conditional discharge or some other nominal form of sentence. I need not really take the matter any further; the subsection is not only unnecessary but positively undesirable and should be removed from the Bill. I beg to move.