Part of Sexual Offences Bill [Lords] – in a Public Bill Committee at 4:30 pm on 18 September 2003.
I simply welcome the amendments. There was no doubt in my mind when I first read the Bill that the definition of the word ''sexual'' in clause 79 as it stood would be a potential disaster area in a jury trial. I just about understood what it meant, but those who represented strongly that it did not read easily and would be very difficult to explain to a jury were absolutely right. One has only to consider the definition in amendment No. 124 to see that it is much easier to understand.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment made: No. 124, in
clause 79, page 37, line 34, leave out from 'if' to end of line 39 and insert
'a reasonable person would consider that—
(a) whatever its circumstances or any person's purpose in relation to it, it is because of its nature sexual, or
(b) because of its nature it may be sexual and because of its circumstances or the purpose of any person in relation to it (or both) it is sexual.'.—[Paul Goggins.]
Clause 79, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.