Clause 2
Fraud Bill [Lords]
10:45 am
Dominic Grieve (Shadow Attorney General & Shadow Spokesman On Community Cohesion, Law Officers (Assist the Home Affairs Team); Beaconsfield, Conservative)
I do not wish to repeat what I said earlier, and clauses 1 and 2 have a clear linkage. The major change in the law that the clause brings about is that it will no longer be necessary to show that the dishonest representation acted upon the mind of another person. There will therefore be a great simplification in the presentation of cases.
As I highlighted in my earlier example, there will be a grey area in such cases because of the extent to which there is sometimes collusion between the person being “deceived” and the person doing the deceiving. The matter is not always as clear cut as one might think. Certainly, from my experience of criminal practice, the turning of a blind eye to a deception that may be of mutual advantage occurs quite frequently in the fraudster’s canon. Prosecutors and judges will have to exercise a measure of discretion in such cases, particularly when it comes to sentencing, and that may prove quite complex. That having been said, I think it right, as a basic principle, that Parliament should insist that individuals do not make dishonest representations for the purpose of obtaining gain for themselves. I do not see anything wrong with the philosophical principle behind clause 2. For that reason, it commands my support.