The fact that it was overturned on appeal reinforces the assurance that I am giving in the sense that we are satisfied that the courts will take into account all relevant information to ensure that the powers of confiscation operate in a reasonable and proportionate manner. It is a matter for the courts to determine the benefit derived from an offence in any individual case.
As with everything else involved in this issue, we all agree on the sentiments; it is the detail that is the problem. Clause 7 is an important provision that concerns strict liability and is, we think, the only way to get at this type of crime that we all want to stamp out as far as practically we can. We agree that it is necessary to provide guidance and that it should come through the Government. I have given an indication of when the initial guidance will be ready, but we accept the ongoing need to look at it. To that end, we would expect that to take the form of a review at some point. The exact words I am supposed to use are these: we would certainly expect to keep the guidance under review as appropriate.
Bribery Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Tunnicliffe
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Thursday, 7 January 2010.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Bribery Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
716 c53GC 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 01:59:09 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_605443
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_605443
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_605443