Lords Amendment — Criminal Justice Bill — Jury tampering — 19 Nov 2003 at 17:15
Lord Cobbold voted in the minority (Not-Content).
34 Clause 43, Leave out Clause 43 The Commons disagree to this Amendment but propose the following Amendments to the words so restored to the Bill-
34A Page 29, line 26, after second "is" insert "evidence of a"
34B Clause 43, page 29, line 37, at end insert-
"(7) The following are examples of cases where there may be evidence of a real and present danger that jury tampering would take place-
(a) a case where the trial is a retrial and the jury in the previous trial was discharged because jury tampering had taken place,
(b) a case where jury tampering has taken place in previous criminal proceedings involving the defendant or any of the defendants,
(c) a case where there has been intimidation, or attempted intimidation, of any person who is likely to be a witness in the trial."
rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 34 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 34A and 34B to the words so restored to the Bill, leave out from "House" to end and insert "do insist on its Amendment No. 34".
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 34C) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 187; Not-Contents, 135.
Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.
What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.
|Party||Majority (Content)||Minority (Not-Content)||Turnout|
|Con||118 (+1 tell)||0||56.4%|
|Lab||2||110 (+2 tell)||60.3%|
|LDem||52 (+1 tell)||0||82.8%|
|Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws||Lab||aye|