Coroners and Justice Bill

I do not accept that that is clear, but I also feel strongly that whether or not that is the case, it is not apparent to people reading the statute what the saving clause does and does not allow; that is simply not clear. To put the words""for the avoidance of doubt"" in front of the provision does not make it any clearer. In fact, it makes it seem that it should be obvious, and when it is not obvious, one is puzzled. Finally, I want to move on to the alternative way of dealing with this. There have been occasions—including all the examples that have been given, such as the Lancashire and Norfolk cases, Iqbal Sacranie and Lynette Burrows—when the people concerned have been questioned by the police. That must stop. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has made it very clear in its considerations of this matter that it is time for the "insulting" provision to be removed from the Public Order Act. It said that in the policing and protest inquiry, which was in the seventh report of 2007-08, and it said it in its eighth report, on this Bill. It is welcome that the Government are looking at this. However, I hope the Minister will be able to say in winding up that they have stopped looking and are now going to start doing, because I do not think there is opposition to this anywhere in the House. The police may object, because they want the ability to start questioning anyone who insults anyone else short of being threatening or abusive, but that is not good enough. If the Government are serious about protecting free speech, they have to deal with this, because there has been a prosecution. The case of Hammond v. DPP involved""an elderly street preacher who preached in the centre of Bournemouth on a Saturday afternoon while holding a large sign with the words: 'Stop Immorality', 'Stop Homosexuality', 'Stop Lesbianism' and 'Jesus is Lord'. A hostile crowd of some 30 to 40 people had formed, some of whom reacted violently by assaulting Mr. Hammond. After his refusal to desist from preaching, and following substantial debate among themselves…the police decided to arrest Hammond rather than his opponents and he was duly convicted of displaying an 'insulting' sign causing 'alarm or distress'…contrary to section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986."" The divisional court upheld the conviction, despite a human rights claim. That means we cannot rely even on article 10 of the convention. We need to get rid of this statute. I understand that, unfortunately, the gentleman died before he was able to take his appeal further. I think that even if just one person is treated like this, it is unacceptable.