My Lords, I am prompted to rise by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. The principle to which he refers is displaced only by a conviction. Therefore, the amendment does not particularly invoke that principle. I would be interested to hear the basis on which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, thinks that a person should be charged with an offence under this provision. Of course, I understand the point made from the opposition Front Bench. It may be sufficient if there are assets in the jurisdiction, even if the person who owns or controls the assets is not himself or herself in the jurisdiction. Having listened carefully to my noble and learned friend Lord Lloyd of Berwick, I am left with the question of the basis on which, or the extent to which, one must know what has happened in order to charge someone with an offence under these provisions.
Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 25 October 2010.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
721 c1040 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 13:22:00 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_672262
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_672262
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_672262