That is entirely possible. There is interesting speculation, let us say, about the origin of the sub-paragraphs of clause 11(2)(a). One explanation is that they have to do with relations with the United States and friendly fire cases. However, another historical explanation has been given, and should perhaps be put on record. It is that objections came from the Metropolitan police because of what happened in the Rodney case, in which a young man was shot by the police. The inquest was not able to continue because of the problem—it was at least seen as such at the time—of wire-tap evidence not being admissible. There might have been other problems to do with the legality of intrusive surveillance. That is another possibility for the origins of the provisions.
Coroners and Justice Bill
Proceeding contribution from
David Howarth
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Commons on Monday, 23 March 2009.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Coroners and Justice Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
490 c71 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 10:52:57 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_543353
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_543353
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_543353