"Ought to know" is a recklessness test, which basically means that if the court decides that it is reasonable that the person should have known, given the information in front of him, that the other person was not consenting—that the person was controlled, or whatever definition we use—he would be committing an offence. I hope that I have answered the question.
Now I shall respond to the intervention by the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz). He is right: the case has been made for new clauses 4 and 25, and I hope that the House will support them both.
Policing and Crime Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Evan Harris
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 19 May 2009.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Policing and Crime Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
492 c1427-8 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 11:38:48 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_560289
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_560289
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_560289