Because the bribery might be made to the police officer for the performance of his functions. I do not know; it clearly needs to be looked at carefully.
We will no doubt welcome a discussion with the Minister to make what we have always said is a good Bill better through the clarification of this. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, has pointed out that it is far better for there not to be a bribery offence committed in particular circumstances. If a person has authority to do what he does, he has not committed a criminal offence. That has a knock-on effect for the person who is standing in the dock with him when the trial takes place. No bribery offence is committed.
Let us take the situation where the first police officer successfully runs the defence and the person standing alongside him does not persuade the jury—and remember that the burden is on the defendant—that that defence is open to him. All kinds of problems can arise out of the wording of this clause and I will no doubt return at Report to say that we should do without it.
Clause 12 agreed.
Clauses 13 to 16 agreed.
Schedules 1 and 2 agreed.
Clauses 17 to 19 agreed.
Bill reported without amendment.
Bribery Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Thomas of Gresford
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 13 January 2010.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Bribery Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
716 c117-8GC 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 02:28:39 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_608434
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_608434
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_608434