Clause 1
Serious Crime Bill [Lords]
11:30 am
Vernon Coaker (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Gedling, Labour)
It is not confused at all. It gives the High Court discretion and allows it to understand that, as far as Parliament is concerned, there is a sliding scale for the standard of proof. Perhaps I can repeat what I said before, because this is an extremely important point, and I hope that hon. Members will forgive me. Such is the seriousness of the test in clause 1(1)(a)—the first of the two tests—that we would expect the standard of proof, consistent with the McCann judgment, to be virtually identical to the criminal standard. There are other aspects, however, where the balance of probability would be used.
As I said, this may be a matter of disagreement between us, but my comments about what the standard of proof in clause 1(1)(a) should be will be perfectly clear when we read the transcripts of this Committee, just as Baroness Scotland’s comments in the other place are perfectly clear.