I am grateful for that assurance. The second matter that I took from his reply is that unless the nature of the conviction in a European Union country is clearly explained to a judge and shown to be apposite, the judge can ignore that previous conviction.
I come back to the illustration that I gave earlier from my own experience of a person convicted in Belgium:—of what he was convicted and whether he had successfully appealed was absolutely unclear. Despite the involvement of Belgian lawyers and requests from the Supreme Court in Belgium, no one was able to clarify precisely what had happened, what he had been convicted of or what his sentence was. In those circumstances, I take it that the Minister would agree that the judge is fully entitled to say, "Well, it’s for the prosecution to show that this is a proper conviction", and if they cannot do that, the judge can ignore it.
Coroners and Justice Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Thomas of Gresford
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 21 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 c1534 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 13:05:39 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_580019
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_580019
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_580019