I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for at least being here now. The problem with his argument is clear when we examine amendment 97, especially what it asks judges to do. My experience of High Court judges is that they apply the words of the statute as given to them. If they apply the words of what would become clause 11(6)(b)—thinking in the way in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman thinks—they will always conclude that it is necessary to hold the inquest without a jury. What the judge is asked to do is satisfy himself, or herself, that""it is necessary to hold the inquest without a jury in order to avoid in order to avoid the matter being made public"."
If it is the case that juries are leaky in the way that the right hon. and learned Gentleman contemplates, surely that will always be the case.
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 c97 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 10:54:09 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_543459
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_543459
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_543459