May I put a very simple question to the Minister about the rationale that underlies Part 4? Is he saying that, up to now, many sentences have been misconceived; and were inconsistent because the wrong approach was adopted by the court? If so, can the Minister give any indication of whether Her Majesty’s Government made any calculation of what percentage of sentences that was? Was it minuscule, substantial or massive? Secondly, can I put a point that I raised two nights ago very late at night? I did not then expect the Minister to reply. That concerned what the Court of Appeal decided in 2007 in relation to the whole question of guidelines in the case of R v Martin. The court said that guidelines are guidelines—no more and no less. It seems to me that, in light of what the Minister is now saying, guidelines will be something much more than mere guidelines.
Coroners and Justice Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Elystan-Morgan
(Crossbench)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 15 July 2009.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Coroners and Justice Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
712 c1226 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 13:00:03 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_578159
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_578159
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_578159