Clause 41
Coroners and Justice Bill
12:45 pm
Jeremy Wright (Whip, Whips; Rugby and Kenilworth, Conservative)
If I am about to spoil another line when the Minister tells us that she is not going to accept the amendment, I apologise now. I agree absolutely with her comment that sexual infidelity should not be sufficient to make out the defence that we are discussing, but clause 42(6)(c) states that
“the fact that a thing done or said constituted sexual infidelity is to be disregarded.”
Does she see the problem, which some have highlighted, that if the court were considering a case where the sexual infidelity in question involved sexual abuse, incest or something of that kind, it would be strange if the court were not able to consider the sexual infidelity aspect as part of the facts? That is even though it would be accepted that sexual infidelity in and of itself would not be sufficient to make out the defence. Is there not a difficulty with the word “disregarded” rather than, as she has said, using the word “insufficient”?