There is no doubt that the Minister needs to give the Committee a great deal more information about the chosen level of proof. I do not want to be a thorn in the flesh but I must say that I am not certain that reasonable doubt is the correct level of proof. Surely if there was reasonable doubt that the respondent was engaged in gang-related violence, a full prosecution would be waged. Nevertheless, the balance of probabilities is not a high test and will bring a great number of people, many of whom may be completely innocent, into the court system, which, again, nobody wants. Can the Minister give us some examples of the sort of evidence that would be admissible and the protection that would be put in place to guard against injunctions being laid inappropriately on the grounds of hearsay or gossip? There is a distinct danger that that could happen.
Policing and Crime Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Skelmersdale
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 13 October 2009.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Policing and Crime Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
713 c171 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 13:15:00 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_583573
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_583573
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_583573