Debates between Lord Murray of Blidworth and Lord Judge during the 2019-2024 Parliament

Wed 16th Nov 2022
Public Order Bill
Lords Chamber

Committee stage: Part 1

Public Order Bill

Debate between Lord Murray of Blidworth and Lord Judge
Lord Murray of Blidworth Portrait Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
- Hansard - -

Can I confirm with my officials and write to the noble Baroness in respect of that point? My understanding is that that is so, but I want to check that before I confirm.

Lord Judge Portrait Lord Judge (CB)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

While the Minister is conferring with his officials, can he suggest to them that they look at Clause1(1) and put in some new words? After

“A person commits an offence if”,


he should add “without reasonable excuse”, if (a) they do this, (b) they do that and (c) they do the other. Then he should get rid of subsection (2).

Lord Murray of Blidworth Portrait Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
- Hansard - -

I hear what the noble and learned Lord says, and I will certainly ask them.

I think that I had reached Amendment 61. It similarly seeks to strengthen the defences available. As I have said already, whether or not someone has a reasonable excuse for their actions is very specific to each particular incident, and we see it as entirely appropriate that the defendant, who committed the offence in the first place and has personal knowledge of those facts, is required to prove them.

I turn lastly to Amendments 56 and 62, which seek to make it an explicit requirement for the police and courts to pay regard to Articles 10 and 11 of the ECHR when determining whether someone has a reasonable excuse for the offences of obstructing major transport works and interference with key national infrastructure. Although I understand the sentiment behind the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, I do not see it as being necessary. It is of course right that the courts and other public bodies are already obliged to act compatibly with the ECHR by reason of the provisions of Sections 6 and 7 of the Human Rights Act 1998. Therefore, there is already legislative protection for the consideration of such rights, and it is not necessary to repeat that in this Bill.